Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

245 ITR 360Supreme Court of India2000#209 most cited

What is Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala authority for?

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

361

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala · doctrine of merger · special leave to appeal · refusal of SLP · speaking order · non-speaking order · section 136 · order substitution · Supreme Court · appellate order effect

Also reported as

113 Taxmann 470

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 144BSection 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 143(3)Section 136

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mergersection 114(e)section 136section 43(3)section 193section 196sanction under section 151non-speaking ordersection 151asection 144asection 114section 151(2)

Judgments citing Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3827/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…e assessment order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 26. On the aspect, whether the dismissal of SLP could be taken to be the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala, [2001] 245 ITR 360, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,- “.......The Supreme Court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding a petition for special leave to appeal. What is impugned before the Supreme Court can be reversed or modified only after granting leave to appeal and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over it. I…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3826/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…e assessment order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 26. On the aspect, whether the dismissal of SLP could be taken to be the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala, [2001] 245 ITR 360, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,- “.......The Supreme Court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding a petition for special leave to appeal. What is impugned before the Supreme Court can be reversed or modified only after granting leave to appeal and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over it. I…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3825/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…e assessment order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 26. On the aspect, whether the dismissal of SLP could be taken to be the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala, [2001] 245 ITR 360, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,- “.......The Supreme Court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding a petition for special leave to appeal. What is impugned before the Supreme Court can be reversed or modified only after granting leave to appeal and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over it. I…

Baldev Ramratan Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1909/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री रसमत कोचर लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 1909/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Baldev Ramratan Sharma …… (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) Marshall Enterprises, 8/B, Shivsagar, Shivaji Park, Road No.5, Mumbai-16 Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax …… (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) Circle-21(1), Room No. 116, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAFPS45477F…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom…

Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad vs. ACIT(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4632/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 144ASection 2(15)

…as held that dismissal of SLP in limine: “could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be appealed against……..”. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Summit court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs. State of Kerala and Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their Lordships have held that an order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of order under challenge. In the hue of the above discussion, it is amply vivid that the mere dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon J&K High Court in the case of Jammu Development A…

Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad vs. ACIT(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4631/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 144ASection 2(15)

…as held that dismissal of SLP in limine: “could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be appealed against……..”. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Summit court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs. State of Kerala and Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their Lordships have held that an order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of order under challenge. In the hue of the above discussion, it is amply vivid that the mere dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon J&K High Court in the case of Jammu Development A…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘C’, New Delhi Before : Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 5629/Del./2012 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income-tax Officer, vs. M/s. Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. Ward 12(1), New Delhi. (formerly Ganpati Retails Pvt. Ltd.) 63, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (PAN-AACCG9937F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Naveen Chandra, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Date of Hearing 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against t…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Dep…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) M/s Crescent Construction Co. Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Dep…

Sri. H. Nagaraja, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 613/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Seshachala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)

…e CIT u/s 263 got merged with the proceedings with the CIT(A). Therefore, applying the principle of merger, revision proceedings are not valid in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. Reported in 245 ITR 360(SC). He further contended that the CIT, in the power of revision, is imposing his views on the AO on certain issues and therefore, the order of revision should be set aside as it has no legs to stand in the eyes of law. On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) placed reliance on the order of revision u/s 263. 8. We heard rival submissions and perused materi…

M/S Dhameja Mining, Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 40Section 69A

…n dismissed with speaking order is declaration of law by Supreme Court - After rejection of SLP, lower Courts can review its order - Once SLP is admitted, lower Courts have no jurisdiction to review the order [Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (SC) 245 ITR 360] It can be seen in the instant case, there is no detailed order and further rejection of SLP does not mean decision of High Court is approved. Further the decision of Hon. High Court of Allahabad is not final as the power to seek review exists. 8. In the decisions reported in CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate [2013] 33 taxmann.com 250 (Cal), CIT v…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) 9 M/s Mumbai Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. C.O. No.39/Mum/2016 New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 2…

ITO vs. M/S Shalom Sankalp Ventures

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1696/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT_DR
Section 147Section 80Section 801

…of M/s. Shravanee constructions though the Hon. Supreme court has only dismissed the SLP filed by the department by way of non-speaking order which does not tantamount to declaration of law under Article 141 of the constitution as held by the Supreme Court in 245 ITR 360. 4.The CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction overlooking the fact that the permission of local authorities for construction of building was not obtained in the name of the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) erred in considering certificate given by a Chartered Engineer to the effect that none of the flats constructed by the assessee has built up area above…

Smt Shanthamma vs. K S Krishna Since Dead by Lrs

WP/38076/2015HC Karnataka03 Jun 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Budihal R.B.

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. WRIT PETITION NO.38076/2015 C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.40521/2015 AND 38476/2015(GM-CPC) IN WRIT PETITION NO.38076/2015 BETWEEN 1. SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. BORAPPA @ K N YESHVANTH KUMAR S/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. DAKSHAYANI D/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. KUM LATHA D/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.1253, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM MYSORE-570 004. ... PETIT…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391 (Delhi) (para 18) 9 Mr. R.P. Suvarna Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2…

Madley Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Commnr of Central Excise&Customs, Daman

C.A. No.-003626-003626 - 2005Supreme Court14 Jan 2011
Section 18Section 27Section 35

…ibunal from which the appeal is provided under clause (3) of Article 133. This doctrine of merger does not apply in the case of dismissal of a special leave petition under Article 136.” 23 33) In the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, it was held: “41. Once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open. The order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of mer…

Pernod Ricard India(P) Ltd vs. Commr.of Customs, Icd Tughlakabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the importer-

C.A. No.-005840-005840 - 2008Supreme Court26 Jul 2010
Section 111Section 130ESection 18(2)Section 28

…uld not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a speaking or non-speaking one. Whenever this 2 (2000) 6 SCC 359 Court has felt inclined to apply its mind to the merits of the order put in issue before it though it may be inclined to affirm the same, it is customary with this Court to grant leave to appeal and thereafter dismiss the appeal itself (and not merely the petition for special leave) though at times the orders granting leave to appeal…