Nirmal Manoj Parekh vs Malika Nirmal Parekh on 12 July, 2018

Nirmal Manoj Parekh vs Malika Nirmal Parekh on


On July 12, 2018, the Supreme Court of India issued its decision in the case of Nirmal Manoj Parekh vs. Malika Nirmal Parekh. The case, reviewed by a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Uday Umesh Lalit, centered around a review petition challenging the Court’s previous order in a special leave petition.


The case originated from a special leave petition filed by Nirmal Manoj Parekh. The petitioner sought the Supreme Court’s intervention in a matter against Malika Nirmal Parekh. After the initial petitions were heard and decided, the petitioner filed a review petition (R.P.(C) Nos.1954-1955/2018) seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order in the special leave petitions (SLP(C) Nos.8357-8358/2018).

Key Arguments

Nirmal Manoj Parekh filed an application requesting permission to appear and argue the case in person. The petitioner also sought the review of the Court’s previous order, asserting that the decision warranted reconsideration due to perceived errors in the initial judgment.

Court’s Observations

Upon reviewing the review petitions and the records of the special leave petitions, the Supreme Court bench concluded that there was no error apparent in the initial order that would justify reconsideration. The Court observed that the arguments presented did not provide sufficient grounds to merit a review of the previous decision.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed by Nirmal Manoj Parekh. The application for permission to appear and argue in person was also rejected. The Court noted that all pending applications related to the case, including those for directions, permission to file additional documents, and permission for the deletion of some annexures, were disposed of as a result of the dismissal of the review petitions.


The decision of the Supreme Court in Nirmal Manoj Parekh vs. Malika Nirmal Parekh reaffirms the finality of the Court’s previous order, emphasizing that the grounds presented for review did not meet the threshold for reconsideration. This ruling underscores the stringent standards applied by the Court in the review process, ensuring that only cases with clear errors or substantial grounds are entertained for further judicial scrutiny.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *