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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more