7 octobre 2022
Can We File Review Petition in High Court
Posted by under: Non classé .
This test is flexible (« normally ») with respect to exceptions. Despite the apparently unambiguous wording of the first part, the Court exercises full control over the cases it adopts, which is regarded as a discretionary decision and a decision that cannot be reviewed. In practice, however, an attempt to circumvent the exceptions will doom the petition to failure. The Court is a matter of review, and it wants to have a clearly developed set of facts and ensure that the Court of Appeal (whose decision is currently under review) had a clear opportunity to decide the issue and assisted in the definition process. However, in exceptional cases, the Supreme Court may still want to grant a review and will deal with omitted or distorted facts. (c) [Restrictions] For political reasons, the Supreme Court will generally disregard when applying for review: Of course, the fact that you can make a bad law is not a good reason to drop the application if it is in the client`s interest, with a reasonable possibility that you may prevail. Special Submission Instructions for a Request for Review The party filing a request for review must provide the California Supreme Court with hard copies of the motion, even if it is filed electronically (electronic record). The applicant must file a brief within 30 days of the court`s agreement to consider the case. This may be an opening statement or a statement filed by the respondent with the Court of Appeal. The other party then has 30 days to file a response or a copy of the pleadings they filed with the Court of Appeal. An optional letter of reply from the petitioner must be submitted within 20 days of the response. On 2 March 2012, the Indian government filed an application for review with the Supreme Court seeking a partial review of the Court`s order of 2 February 2012 revoking 122 licences.
[4] The government questioned the Supreme Court`s authority to rule against the first-come, first-served policy, but refrained from challenging the cancellation of 122 licenses issued during A Raja`s tenure as Minister of Telecommunications. [5] On the same day, Sistema, the majority shareholder of MTS India, also filed a motion for review with the Supreme Court. [6] On 4. In April 2012, the government`s request for review was granted for limited reasons and the remaining 10 requests for review were denied. [7] Subsequently, the Government of India requested the withdrawal of the application for review, which was granted by the Supreme Court of India.[8] Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives a right of review on the merits and Ordinance XLVII provides for the procedure for filing an application for review. Article 114 provides that any injured party may request a review of a judgment or order of the Court of Justice if: It depends on the case. The court may delay the review pending the decision of another case. The court may also take the time to decide which of the issues in the case it wishes to hear.
Under Rule 7 of THE CPC Order XLVII, a decision dismissing the application for review is not subject to appeal; However, a decision granting a review may be challenged before a court of appeal. The California Supreme Court has 60 days to respond after the filing of the final request for review. The court may extend the time limit up to a maximum of 90 days after the filing of the last request for reconsideration. The court has rules about who can file an application for review. It must be a person over the age of 18 who lives in the county where they serve. A party to the case cannot apply for review by mail or in person. The dismissal of an application for habeas corpus filed on the same day as the decision rendered in a corresponding appeal becomes final before the Court of Appeal at the same time as the corresponding appeal. A fundamental function of the discretionary motion and the fairly cursory conference is to allow the Supreme Court to control its workload within a manageable framework. To put it more frankly, it is a way of not being buried by requests to be heard. This aspect is the negative side, but it also has its own negative limits. The public would not respond well to the perception that the law is made by refusing to hear cases in a non-public, secret manner unless there is some balance between the types of cases, litigants and issues, and the court already suffers from significant criticism of publication as a means of deciding or burying issues. The public interest is therefore a potentially high-burden issue, as is the need for justice and fairness in order to promote the perception that the Court is indeed concerned only with maintaining its adequate and reasonably manageable workload.
A motion for review is not an opportunity to challenge a decision simply because you don`t like it.
Comments are closed.
