Skip to main content

High Court on 'Wrong Judgment' and 'Review Petition'

In K.M.TOMAR vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS., the Delhi High Court, rapped litigants for making it a habit of filing review petitions without understanding whether the case was fit for it.

“Some litigants, it appears, are never satisfied. This is being stated by this Court because filing of review petition has now become almost a habit with respect to certain litigants,” Justice Valmiki J. Mehta observed.

The Court also scorned at the practice of lawyers routinely giving out certificates affirming that such review petitions should be filed, observing, “Not only filing of the review petition becoming a habit for certain litigants, the same is also not filed in terms of the rules of this Court, because a review petition must be accompanied by a certificate of the lawyer that the review petition is justified, however, lawyers are routinely giving certificate that the review petition should be filed. Giving of certificates by lawyers in a routine manner defeats the whole purpose of trusting the lawyers that they would only certify a case being fit for review only when it clearly falls within the scope of review jurisdiction.”

It then went on to explain the difference between the two ways in which a judgment can be “wrong”, explaining, “A judgment being ‘wrong’ has two connotations. One is ‘wrong’ for the purpose of review petition and another ‘wrong’ is that the judgment is wrong for the purpose of exercising appellate jurisdiction by the appellate court. What is within the realm of jurisdiction of an appellate court for holding the judgment to be wrong/illegal for being set aside is not within the scope of review petition and which lies only if there is some ex-facie and complete illegality in the impugned judgment i.e. an error apparent on the face of record.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more