Skip to main content

Once review petition is dismissed, only the main order can be challenged, not the order dismissing the review petition

In Ramvati Vs. Sukhbir Singh Chauhan and Ors., the High Court of Delhi referring to the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi held that, once the Court has refused to entertain the review petition and the same is dismissed, there is no question of any merger and the aggrieved person has to challenge the main order and not the order dismissing the review petition because to the dismissal of the review petition the principle of merger does not apply. Reference was made to DSR Steel (Private) Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan laying down that, when the review petition is dismissed, the order of which review was sought, suffers neither any reversal nor an alteration or modification and anyone aggrieved by the order of which review was sought shall have to challenge the same and not the order dismissing the review petition. Applying the said principles, the SLP preferred against the order of dismissal of review petition, without challenging the order of which review was sought, was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed. 

Even if a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was held to be maintainable, it would be maintainable on the well recognized grounds, of the Court having exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it or having exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity and which is not found to be the case. It is not as if the learned Civil Judge has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in her of review or has exercised the same with material irregularity. The view taken by the learned ADJ, of there being no error within the meaning of Order XL VII Rule 1 of the CPC in the order of which review was sought, is a well reasoned view in accordance with law. There is thus no merit in the petition which is dismissed.

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

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more