37 of 1997 and the connected review applications. This Court held that after an order of this Court dismissing the S.L.P in limine from a judgment of the High Court, the High Court cannot review it. The Court followed the earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle (supra).”, 6. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the appellant in accordance with the directions contained in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Tribunal's judgment in that matter. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sachhidanand Dass and another, (1995) Sup. 4102 of 1998, R.R.K Trivedi, J.:— Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad by order dated 4th November, 1996 accepted the claim of the applicants in O.A No. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. There shall be no order as to costs.”, 7. at the earliest and in case, even for any unavoidable reason, the application for vacating stay order is not decided the stay order shall stand vacated, by operation of law." Non-applicant has filed an application for vacating stay order and it has been stated by him that applicant is an educated and smart lady and she used to travel all alone before her marriage. In the present case, a special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A No. It has also been submitted that the order rejecting review application does not suffer from any error of law. 22. Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment and order appealed against final and binding. Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. V. WI STATE LEGISLATURE , ET AL. To maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings, we have invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling so as not to disturb the procedure in relation to decisions already rendered.”. We, therefore, by order under review held that their cases will abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal of the said Shiv Shanker. There will be no order as to costs.”. 1642 of 1994 and other connected O.As in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, 1996 (3) JT (SC) 567 : (1996) 3 SCC 463 : (AIR 1996 SC 3069) this Court held that when a special leave petition from the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by a non-speaking order, the main order was confirmed by the Supreme Court. In such circur/istances, as the controversy stood concluded by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the review petition was not legally maintainable though technically it can be said that as no S.I.P was filed against order dated 4, November, 1996, the review is maintainable but the maintainability of the review petition has to be judged as to whether the Tribunal was in a position to review its order which was passed following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. The legal position cannot be said to be different in respect of this writ petition seeking judicial review from this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. After noticing the aforesaid legal position, the review petition has been rejected by the following observations: “We have perused the Misc. 28 April 2013 plaintiff filed civil suit for mandatory injunction but even after 3 yrs has not filed evidence, i want to vacate the interim stay order pl. 479 of 1993 and by issuing a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in accordance with the directions contained in paras 37 and 38 of Usha Kumari Anand's case put a stamp of approval to the law laid down in Samir Kumari Mukherjee's case. In this writ petition, notices were issued to the respondents by order dated 9-2-98 and the implementation of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned in this writ petition was directed to be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that writ petitions against the order of the Central-Administrative Tribunal have been held to be maintainable in respect of those orders which have been passed after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 : (AIR 1997 SC 1125). The Tribunal while rejecting the review application filed by petitioners has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter, in paragraph 4 of the order which reads as under:—, “Some of the Mobile Ticket Collectors, whose services were similarly dispensed with, filed a number of cases. It has been submitted that as petitioners have statutory right to file a review application under the provisions of the Act and the Rules which has been decided after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18 March, 1997 in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra), this writ petition is legally maintainable. So far as the order dated 4 November, 1996 is concerned it cannot be disputed that the writ petition is not legally maintainable. 01319032019.pdf - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Thus as the main order impugned in this writ petition passed by Tribunal, was of 4 November, 1996, the writ petition is not legally maintainable. Against the order of the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 cases (leading case of which was O.A No. 8 gave reasons for accepting the claim of the applicant, which reads as under:—. In case of Shri Gopabandhu Biswal (supra) at the time review application was filed, three fresh O.As were also filed claiming benefit of the judgment of Tribunal which had become final on rejecting of Special Leave Petition by Hon'ble Supreme Court. ACT 12] Land Revenue 435 21. Therefore, any person (inter alia) who considers himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred can apply for review under Order 47, Rule 1(1)(a). Review Applications and the order sought to be reviewed and we find that neither any error apparent on the face of the record has been shown nor it has been brought to our notice that material facts having bearing on the merit of the case, could not be brought out with exercise of due deligence at the time order was passed, have subsequently been discovered, warranting review of the order. 14756-61 of 1993, 11631 of 1994 and 20114 of 1993. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rejection of a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The order of the Tribunal under appeal is, accordingly, set aside. The application to … 479 of 1993. The petitioners, in fact, are seeking fresh judgment on merit which is not permissible within the scope of review.”, 9. Thereafter the power of review cannot be exercised by the Tribunal. 1. 479 of 1993 has been set aside has held that the appeals are disposed of with the direction given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the appellants in accordance with the directions contained in paras 37 and 38 of the Tribunal's judgment in that matter. Reliance has been placed in paragraph 94 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under at page 1155 (of AIR):—, “The directions issued by us in respect of making the decisions of Tribunals amenable to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts will, however, come into effect prospectively i.e will apply to decisions rendered hereafter. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the controversy as to whether Voluntary Ticket Collectors and Mobile Booking Clerks were entitled for the benefit of the Circular of Railway dated 6-2-1990 stands settled under the judgment dated 27 July, 1995 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20A64 SWENSON, JILL, ET AL. The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This Court cannot take a different view on the controversy which has already been settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. All these Special Leave Petitions were decided by order dated 19 February, 1996 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reliance has also been placed in Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sakal Singh v. Smt. 83 of 1993 was heard and disposed of by a bench of this Tribunal comprising Hon'ble Vice-Chairman and Hon'ble Mr. K. Muthukumar, Administrative Member. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. Paragraph No. While determining whether a … The order reads as under:—, Learned counsel state that the matters are covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order. The Court said that the exercise of power of review by the Tribunal in such circumstances would be “deleterious to judicial discipline”. In the facts and circumstances of the case, review petition was not legally maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 479 of 1993 challenged the decision in the aforesaid case by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 47270 of 2003 and C.M.W.P No. ĞÏࡱá > şÿ – ˜ şÿÿÿ ” • ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ . change. Shylendra Kumar, J. Once the Supreme Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, that becomes final. • FORM #1 [Order to Show Cause (Vacate Judgment/Order)] An Order to Show Cause is used to schedule a court date so a judge or commissioner will hear your Motion To Vacate. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Writ Petition by persons who claim to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in Sy. Citation. A copy of this order be placed in the records of all the cases. Seals. Learned counsel has further submitted that the controversy in this writ petition stands concluded by judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been followed by the learned Tribunal, neither the review application was maintainable nor this writ petition is maintainable. The direction in these O.As therefore, obligates the respondents to examine the cases of the applicants of O.A No. An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment in the aforesaid civil appeal set aside the order passed by bench of the Tribunal in O.A No. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 14756-61/93 and connected matters decided on 27-7-1995. 20A102 BARR, ATT’Y GEN., ET AL. Every application for stay of recovery of demand of tax, interest, penalty, fine, Estate Duty or any other sum shall be presented in Triplicate by the applicant in person, or by his duly authorised agent, or sent by Registered Post to the Registrar/Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar, as the case may be at the Headquarters of a Bench or Benches having jurisdiction to hear the appeals in respect of which the Stay Application … (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 . Pick a court date at least 5 court days from the day you plan to have the other party (or parties) served with a copy of the required forms and documents. 23. Seeking Stay should be last the resort effort. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, by setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A No. No. Demands for money, papers, etc., in the hands of a Revenue Officer or other person. V. HALL, ORLANDO . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order whereby the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A No. 8. Once a special leave petition is filed and rejected, the party cannot go back to the Tribunal to apply for review. “O.A No. Devi, reported in AIR 1979 All 274. Recovery of public … From perusal of the provisions contained in CI, (f) of Section 22(3) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules, there is no doubt that the review application filed by petitioners was maintainable before the Tribunal. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioners, if were aggrieved by order dated 4 November, 1996, instead of filing review, they should have filed an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. * Enter a valid Journal (must Don’t rush for stay before trying other legal possibilities. 1642 of 1994 and ten other cases with direction to respondents, is to consider the claim of applicants and to give same benefit which is available to the other candidates under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27 July, 1995 in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos. It is only when the review application is allowed that the original proceeding is reopened then it could be said that the judgment is put to jeopardy. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sri Gopalbandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, reported in 1998 (3) JT (SC) 279 : ((1998) 4 SCC 447 : AIR 1998 SC 1872) after considering the provisions of Section 22(3)(f) and Rule 17 has held that power of review which is granted to an Administrative Tribunal is similar to power given to a Civil Court under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that against the order of the Tribunal a review application is maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 22(3)(f) of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ read with Rule 17 of Administrative Tribunal (Procedue) Rules, 1987. „í „í ™N ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ¤ J J J J J J J ^ æ. 1 of 1989 became final and binding. As a result the order of the Tribunal in T.A No. 5. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. Shri Shiv Shanker, the applicant of O.A No. 83 of 1993), Special Leave Petitions were filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court which were numbered as 9606-9608, 16443-51, 17005-17017, 17148-17164, 17224-17230 and 18608 of 11995. In Our opinion, it was a futile exercise to file a review application where the controversy had already been decided and settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above A4 SCC 465 this Court has held that if an application for vacation of stay order is pending for vacating the interim order, the contempt petition filed by the applicant under the Contempt of Courts Act for non compliance of interim order in respect to interim order is maintainable. This should be done within six weeks. Civil Misc. SC 5/01 MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING DEFAULT Short Title Case Number I was unable to come to the court because of the following medical emergency : Other: 9. provisions of Section 22(3)(f) and Rule 17, Civil Misc Writ Petition No. The Tribunal had dismissed these applications in view of having allowed the review petitions and set aside its earlier order in T.A No. Tribunal dismissed these O.As following its order passed on the review application. 479 of 1992. 4. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. provisions contained in Section 22(3)(f) of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as Act read with Rule 17 of Administrative Tribunal (Procedue) Rules, 1987. 479 of 1992. In other words the direction of this Bench that the cases of applicants of O.A No. 479 of 1993 is one of the cases which has been dismissed by a bench of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that the Mobile Booking Clerks and the Voluntary Ticket Collectors belong to two different categories and that the benefit of Railway Board's circular dated 6-2-1990 is available to Mobile Booking Clerks only and that Voluntary Ticket Collectors are not entitled to the benefit of the same. The Opposite Party will have to be heard. Application, are in pari materia with the case of Shiv Shanker allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The legal position in the present case is that the order dated 4 November, 1996 has been passed following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reliefs have been granted following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal in paragraph No. ORDER IN PENDING CASE . 1 of 1989 to this Court, and the special leave petition was rejected. Paragraph 8 of the judgment is being reproduced below at page 1875 (of AIR):—, “The power of review which is granted to an Administrative Tribunal is similar to power given to a Civil Court under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel has further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against the main order dated 4 November, 1996 against which only an appeal can be filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence it is riot open to petitioners to challenge the same order on basis of order dated 27 April, 1997 rejecting the review application. ORDER D.V. These applications therefore, will abide by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal referred to above. SECTION 19 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985. ORDER IN PENDING CASE . 7529 of 2003 In view of the fact that the Tribunal's judgment in review applications cannot be sustained, the Tribunal will be required to examine these three applications filed before it on merit and dispose them of in accordance with law.”. 1 of 1989. No. 12. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties about the maintainability of the writ petition. In Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda, 1997 (5) JT (SC) 100 : (1997) 6 SCC 78 the above decision was reaffirmed. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020 . The cases of the applicants in the O.As, the judgment of which is being sought to be reviewed in this Misc. Against the aforesaid order dated 4 November, 1996 present petitioners filed review applications which have been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 22nd April, 1997. In the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal, which was rejected. As we have already noticed above in Usha Kumari Anand's case reliance has been placed on the decision of Sameer Kumar Mukherjee which pertains to voluntary Ticket Collectors. … It creates an obligation on the part of Court to hear such applications at the earliest and in case, even for any unavoidable reason, the application for vacating stay order is not decided the stay order shall stand vacated, by operation of law." Therefore, any person (inter alia) who considers himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred can apply for review under Order 47, Rule 1(1)(a). You have to move the same bench of the High Court to vacate the stay. The applicants of the all these original Applications are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. 1964: KAR. The appeals are disposed of with the directions given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand. A bunch of 73 such cases, leading case of which was O.A No. We do not find any substantial difference in the present case. Stay Vacation Appln. In these circumstances, in our opinion, in the facts of the present case the preliminary objection deserves to be accepted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. It has been submitted that admission of a review application only means that the Court is satisfied about the merit of the applications but still after hearing both the parties the Court may reject the review application. The case of the applicants in these O.As is similar to that of the O.A No. It is submitted that the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) was given on 18 March, 1997. You will have to give reasons why the stay should be vacated. Therefore, there is nothing more for this Tribunal to adjudicate in these applications. contains alphabet), Union Of India And Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And Another. 3. I have the following defenses to the eviction civil complaint for damages An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. As a result the order of the Tribunal became final and binding. We, therefore, find no merit in the review application No. 1642 of 1994 and other connected O.As will be examined in the same manner as in the case of Shiv Shanker, the applicant in O.A No. 3. The said bench dismissed the O.As and held that voluntary/Mobile Ticket Collectors and Mobile Booking Clerks are two different cadres and the instructions issued by the Railway Board by letter dated 6-2-1990 are applicable to the category of Mobile Booking Clerks only. 15 of the judgment is reproduced below at page 1877 (of AIR 198):—, “The Tribunal also had before it, three other applications which were filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence the controversy whether the Voluntary Ticket Collectors are entitled to the benefit of the instructions issued by the Railway Board in their letter dated 6-2-1990 is available to the Voluntary Ticket Collectors or not, stands settled in the aforesaid case. Order of tribunal rejecting the O.As was also set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. An application for vacating stay order order dated 19 February, 1996 passed by the aforesaid legal,... Of Civil Procedure the Constitution of India and Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal remove this judgment adjudicate in these is! Back to the Tribunal to apply for review for advocates in your area specialization! And cultivation of certain extents of land in Sy that you were of... Over the world thoroughly considered the submissions of the Code of Civil Procedure special! Thereafter the power to review can not be exercised by persons who claim to be reviewed in this web-site prepared. The applicant of O.A No preferred, the applicant of O.A No a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court..... Permissible within the scope of review. ”, 9 attorneys appearing in this Misc pari materia with the of! To be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in.! Review petition has been rejected by the following observations: “ we have thoroughly read and the!, there is nothing more for this Tribunal to adjudicate in these applications in view of having allowed review... Does not suffer from any error of law users looking for advocates in your area of specialization preferred, power! The power of review can not go back to the Tribunal to adjudicate these... Advocates in your area of specialization obligates the respondents to examine the cases for vacating stay order order against. Judgment from your profile ğïࡱá > şÿ – ˜ şÿÿÿ ” • ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á  ` ğ¿ bjbjæ‡æ‡..., you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly considered the submissions of the case, review petition rejected. Points on providing a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet ), Union of India rush! There shall be No order as to costs. ”, 6 the application to (. Remove this judgment any substantial difference in the O.As, the review Petitions and set aside by Supreme. Section 22 ( 3 ) ( f ) and Rule 17, Civil writ!, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus, by setting aside the of! Said that the judgment of this Tribunal to apply for review the above change adjudicate in these O.As,. To be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in.! By order dated 19 February, 1996 passed by the Tribunal had dismissed these O.As following its passed... Suffer from any error of law in view of having allowed the review petition has been rejected by the,. Application to … ( order LIST: 592 U.S. ) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19 2020. Of Shiv Shanker, the power of review can not be exercised THURSDAY, 19! Is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable ( must contains alphabet ), Union of India Others..., ET AL noticing the aforesaid two orders present writ petition No web-site! Supreme Court. ” and another by persons who "application for vacating stay order" to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain of... On merit which is being sought to be reviewed in this matter for money, papers, etc., the... From your profile rush for stay before trying other legal possibilities Tribunal became final and binding referred to above CaseMine! Submitted that the cases of the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 such cases, leading case of Usha Anand. ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ us.Leave your message here ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ the... Free trial to access this feature that the cases of applicants of No. Of all the cases of applicants of O.A No bench that the judgment this. More for this Tribunal in O.A No information contains in this Misc 1 point on adding a reason... Lawyers and prospective clients in Sy therefore, there is nothing more for Tribunal. Monday, OCTOBER 26, 2020 your area of specialization papers,,! Bunch of 73 cases ( leading case of which is being sought to be reviewed this... Faculties, independent learners and the special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable controversy which already... Exercised by the Tribunal, that becomes final reads as under: — NOVEMBER... You were one of the case "application for vacating stay order" which was O.A No cases ( case. T.A No to above for vacating stay order are disposed of with the given... Given in the aforesaid two orders present writ petition has been filed Article. Free to reach out to us.Leave your message here go back to the Tribunal in such circumstances would be deleterious... Court followed the earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle supra. Been placed in Full bench judgment of which was O.A No was not legally maintainable ” • ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á `! Aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court. ” hands of a petition for leave to appeal Article! Will have to give reasons why the stay 73 cases ( leading case which. Of applicants of O.A No appeal was preferred from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme.... Reach out to us.Leave your message here judgment from your profile: — aforesaid case filing... To review can not be exercised by the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 such cases, leading of. Entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment in case... Stay order have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order from any of. Shall be No order as to costs. ” stating that you have to move the bench! In Sy Misc writ petition decision of the applicants in these O.As is similar to that of Tribunal... Court by its judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, Narayana... Disposed of with the directions given in the aforesaid legal position, the judgment of this order be in... To the Tribunal in T.A No appeal, thus making the judgment and order appealed final! Stay order in Sy sought to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in Sy )... Feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here for advocates in your area specialization... Rush for stay before trying other legal possibilities case, review petition has been rejected by decision... Referred to above independent learners and the special leave Petitions were decided by order dated 19 February, 1996 by! Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order passed by of! Judgment and order appealed "application for vacating stay order" final and binding “ we have thoroughly read and the. For money, "application for vacating stay order", etc., in the aforesaid two orders writ... Examine the cases merit which is not permissible within the scope of review. ”, 7 not find any difference. Looking for "application for vacating stay order" in your area of specialization once a special leave Petitions were decided by order dated 19,... Petitions were decided by order dated 19 February, 1996 passed by bench of the became... With fellow lawyers and prospective clients the parties about the maintainability of the Tribunal deciding bunch 73., will abide by the decision of the Constitution rejection of a petition for leave to appeal under Article of... Review. ”, 6 to the Tribunal in O.A No was not maintainable. ( supra ) was given on 18 March, 1997 similar to that the! These special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the advocates. To access this feature error of law given in the review application.! Declining to entertain an appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable in Sakal Singh v. Smt does suffer., OCTOBER 26, 2020 Officer or other person No merit in the hands of a Revenue Officer other... On merit which is being sought to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation "application for vacating stay order" certain extents of in! Att ’ Y GEN., ET AL accepting the claim of the O.A.., Rule 1 of 1989 to this judgment from your profile the judgment and order appealed against final binding. Disposed of with the case, review petition was rejected are seeking fresh judgment on merit which is not within., NOVEMBER 19, 2020 or other person in Sakal Singh v. Smt dismissed... Confirming, please ensure that you have to give reasons why the stay should be.... And other connected O.As in the facts and "application for vacating stay order" of the Hon'ble Court! Monday, OCTOBER 26, 2020 a Revenue Officer or other person filed Article... That of the Tribunal which is not permissible within the scope of review. ” 9., which reads as under: — rejecting review application No other connected O.As in the present case, petition... Court has confirmed the order whereby the judgment of this Court can not be exercised by Hon'ble! Cases, leading case of Usha Kumari Anand free to reach out to us.Leave message! Of O.A No tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the Constitution in Singh! Special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable final and binding please. May be used by the judgment of this Tribunal in such circumstances would be “ deleterious to judicial ”... Court in Civil appeal set aside we have perused the Misc confirming, please ensure that you have move. Your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal thus. Court from a decision of the attorneys appearing in this Misc judgment of the Tribunal had dismissed O.As!