Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SANTOSH versus STATE OF U.P.

Decided
16 March 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 287 · 2009 INSC 347

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. F

p. 287

1

Leave granted.

p. 287

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Revision Petitions filed by the appellant. Two revisions G petitions were filed and one of them i.e. Criminal Revision No.1622 of 1989 was by the appellant. The matter was taken up ex-parte and the revision petition was dismissed after referring to various aspects. An application for recall was filed 287 which was dismissed on the ground that the order which was sought to be recalled was passed on merits and therefore cannot be recalled.

pp. 287–288

3

Though many points were urged in support of the application it is not necessary to go into those in detail. While issuing notice on 7 .11 .2008 it was indicated that the matter may be remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing as the revision petition was dismissed in the absence of learned counsel for the appellant. During the hearing of the application learned counsel for the appellant indicated various reasons for which there was non appearance on the day the matter was taken up. That being so, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits. To avoid unnecessary delay let the parties appear before the High Court on 24.3.2009 so that a date of hearing can be fixed. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to post the matter before an appropriate Bench.

p. 288, margin A

4

The appeal is allowed. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

p. 288, margin D