The order passed in the Curative Petition is made available for perusal in the paperbook of the Writ Petition.
Respondent s J U D G M E N T KURIAN JOSEPH, J. I regret my inability to agree with my learned brother.
474 of 2013 Consequently, restore Criminal Appeal No.
It is seen that the order dated 21.07.2015 dismissing the Curative Petition has been companysidered by a Bench of three senior most Judges of this Court.
1728 of 2007 decided on 21.3.2013 for hearing and Pass any other or further order s as this Honble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.
emphasis supplied The prayers in the Curative Petition read as follows Allow the present curative petition filed against the order dated 9.4.2015 in Review Petition Criminal No.
THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees life to a person and the person shall be deprived of his life only in accordance with the procedure established by law.
During the companyrse of admission hearing of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, a question arose as to whether the Curative Petition in this case has been decided in accordance with law.
129 OF 2015 YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON Petitioner s VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR.
The matter was partly heard yesterday and the arguments were deferred for today on this issue.
The Curative Petition in Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is one procedure regarding the remedy available to a person even after the Review Petition is dismissed.
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL No.
J. ANIL R. DAVE New Delhi July 28, 2015.
The synopsis portion of the Curative Petition reads as follows The present Curative Petition under Article 142 of the Constitution of India arises in an exceptional case as grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner whereby his fundamental rights as guaranteed to him under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been companypletely violated.
Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. T.R.Andhyarujina and Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior companynsel and Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, at length.
Hence, the petitioner most humbly beseeches this Honble Court to kindly reconsider its order dated 9.4.2015, in terms whereof, the Review Petition of the petitioner seeking reconsideration of its Order Judgment dated 21.3.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.
1728 of 2007 reported in 2013 13 SCC 1 was dismissed.
