Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Advocates
Acts
  • MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI; 12TH AUGUST, 2022. 4 ITEM NO.1002 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Advocates
Acts
  • MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI; 12TH AUGUST, 2022. 4 ITEM NO.1002 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns three Review Petitions filed by MIHAN India Ltd. against earlier judgments rendered in Civil Appeals Nos. 3699/2022, 3701/2022, and 3702/2022. The matter reached the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and the petitions were circulated “by circulation” to a two-judge Bench on 12 August 2022. Registry reports indicated several procedural defects in all three petitions—principally deficit court fee, improper cause titles, and missing indexing or certificates. Despite prior Registry letters, these defects remained uncured. Applications for condonation of delay and for oral hearing accompanied the review petitions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record that would justify reconsideration of the judgments in Civil Appeals 3699/2022, 3701/2022, and 3702/2022.
  2. Whether the procedural defects (deficit court fee, improper cause title, etc.) warranted dismissal of the petitions independent of their merits.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

After examining the review petitions, the impugned orders, and accompanying documents, the Bench noted:

  • Procedural Defects: Each petition suffered from outstanding defects highlighted by the Registry (deficit court fee, faulty cause title, missing index, etc.). The petitioners had not remedied these defects despite prior notices.
  • Delay Applications: Delays of 36 days (Diary No. 24016/2022) and 37 days (Diary No. 24120/2022) in filing the review petitions were condoned.
  • Oral Hearing Applications: Requests for oral hearing were rejected; the matters were considered by circulation in chambers.
  • Merits Review: On a substantive examination, the Court found “no error apparent on the face of the record” that would warrant exercise of its review jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution or Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Given the concurrent presence of unresolved procedural defects and lack of substantive error, the Court dismissed all three review petitions “being defective and also on merits.”

Holding and Implications

Holding: All three Review Petitions are DISMISSED; delay condonation applications are allowed, oral-hearing applications are rejected.

Implications: The dismissal leaves intact the earlier judgments in Civil Appeals 3699/2022, 3701/2022, and 3702/2022. The order sets no new precedent; its direct effect is limited to the parties, reaffirming that review jurisdiction will not be exercised absent an obvious error and that procedural compliance remains essential.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    MIHAN INDIA LTD. v. GMR AIRPORTS LTD.

    1

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    INHERENT JURISDICTION

    REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No…………/2022(@Diary No. 24016/2022)

    IN

    CIVIL APPEAL NO.3699/2022

    AND

    REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No…………/2022(@Diary No.18153/2022)

    IN

    CIVIL APPEAL NO.3701/2022

    AND

    REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No…………/2022(@Diary No.24120/2022)

    IN

    CIVIL APPEAL NO.3702/2022 MIHAN INDIA LTD. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    GMR AIRPORTS LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)

    O R D E R

    Review Petition (Civil)Diary No. 24016/2022 in Civil Appeal No.3699/2022:-

    1. As per Office Report dated 11-8-2022, the Review Petition is defective due to deficit court fee and cause title is not proper and despite this Registry's letter dated 11-8-2022, learned counsel for the petitioner has not cured all the defects so far.

    2. Delay of 36 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

    3. Application seeking oral hearing of the Review Petition is rejected.

    2

    4. Having carefully gone through the Review Petition, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned.

    5. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed being defective and also on merits.

    Review Petition (CIVIL) Diary No.18153/2022) in Civil Appeal No.3701/2022:-

    1. As per Office Report dated 11-8-2022, the Review Petition is defective as court fee has not been filed and index, certificate of Advocate and cause title are also not proper and despite this Registry's letters dated 7-7-2022 & 22-7-2022, learned counsel for the petitioner has not cured all the defects so far.

    2. Having carefully gone through the Review Petition, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned.

    3. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed being defective and also on merits.

    Review Petition (CIVIL) Diary No.24120/2022) IN Civil Appeal No.3702/2022:-

    1. As per Office Report dated 11-8-2022, the Review Petition is defective as court fee has not been filed and cause title is also not proper and despite this Registry's letter dated 11-8-2022, learned counsel for the petitioner has not cured all the defects so far.

    3

    2. Delay of 37 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

    3. Application seeking oral hearing of the Review Petition is rejected.

    4. Having carefully gone through the Review Petition, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned.

    5. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed being defective and also on merits.

    .....................J

    (KRISHNA MURARI)

    .....................J

    (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

    NEW DELHI;

    12TH AUGUST, 2022.

    4

    ITEM NO.1002 SECTION III

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 24016/2022 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3699/2022

    MIHAN INDIA LTD. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    GMR AIRPORTS LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 108491/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION & IA No. 108490/2022 - ORAL HEARING)

    WITH

    Diary No(s). 18153/2022 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3701/2022 (III) Diary No(s). 24120/2022 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3702/2022 (III)

    (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION ON IA

    109057/2022 & FOR ORAL HEARING ON IA 109059/2022) Date : 12-08-2022 These matters were circulated today.

    CORAM :

    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI By Circulation

    UPON perusing papers the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    The Review Petitions are dismissed being defective and also on merits, in terms of the signed order.

    (VISHAL ANAND) (R.S. NARAYANAN)

    ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed Order is placed on the file)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    MIHAN INDIA LTD. v. GMR AIRPORTS LTD.
    (Aug 12, 2022)