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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more