Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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. 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. 20A64 SWENSON, JILL, ET AL. 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. Don’t rush for stay before trying other legal possibilities. 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. 1964: KAR. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. 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. 22. ORDER IN PENDING CASE . Seeking Stay should be last the resort effort. In the present case, a special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A No. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order whereby the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A No. ĞÏࡱá > şÿ – ˜ şÿÿÿ ” • ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ . 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.”. 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. ORDER D.V. In the facts and circumstances of the case, review petition was not legally maintainable. 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. 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. ACT 12] Land Revenue 435 21. 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. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. 7529 of 2003 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. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. I have the following defenses to the eviction civil complaint for damages As a result the order of the Tribunal in T.A No. Order of tribunal rejecting the O.As was also set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court. “O.A No. 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 also been placed in Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sakal Singh v. Smt. 01319032019.pdf - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. 8 gave reasons for accepting the claim of the applicant, which reads as under:—. The Court followed the earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle (supra).”, 6. A copy of this order be placed in the records of all the cases. 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. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. Shylendra Kumar, J. 12. Once the Supreme Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, that becomes final. While determining whether a … 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. ORDER IN PENDING CASE . 11. 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. 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. You have to move the same bench of the High Court to vacate the stay. 20A102 BARR, ATT’Y GEN., ET AL. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Demands for money, papers, etc., in the hands of a Revenue Officer or other person. 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. It is submitted that the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) was given on 18 March, 1997. • 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. 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 Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda, 1997 (5) JT (SC) 100 : (1997) 6 SCC 78 the above decision was reaffirmed. 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. 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. … 479 of 1992. 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. Citation. 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 … Paragraph No. Writ Petition by persons who claim to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in Sy. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. This should be done within six weeks. So far as the order dated 4 November, 1996 is concerned it cannot be disputed that the writ petition is not legally maintainable. 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. 479 of 1993. 4. 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." 23. No. An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. 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 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. An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. 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). We do not find any substantial difference in the present case. 14756-61 of 1993, 11631 of 1994 and 20114 of 1993. Once a special leave petition is filed and rejected, the party cannot go back to the Tribunal to apply for review. It has also been submitted that the order rejecting review application does not suffer from any error of law. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Stay Vacation Appln. 47270 of 2003 and C.M.W.P No. 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. We, therefore, find no merit in the review application No. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. 2. 8. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. 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. 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. The order of the Tribunal under appeal is, accordingly, set aside. 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. Sachhidanand Dass and another, (1995) Sup. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Civil Misc. Against the order of the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 cases (leading case of which was O.A No. 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. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda. 1 of 1989. You will have to give reasons why the stay should be vacated. 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. 5. Recovery of public … 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. Application, are in pari materia with the case of Shiv Shanker allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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. 14756-61/93 and connected matters decided on 27-7-1995. „í „í ™N ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ¤ J J J J J J J ^ æ. These applications therefore, will abide by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal referred to above. A bunch of 73 such cases, leading case of which was O.A No. 37 of 1997 and the connected review applications. The case of the applicants in these O.As is similar to that of the O.A No. (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020 . Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order. V. WI STATE LEGISLATURE , ET AL. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. V. HALL, ORLANDO . This Court cannot take a different view on the controversy which has already been settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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. 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. provisions of Section 22(3)(f) and Rule 17, Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 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. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. 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. Shri Shiv Shanker, the applicant of O.A No. 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. contains alphabet), Union Of India And Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And Another. * Enter a valid Journal (must 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. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 3. 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. 1642 of 1994 and other connected O.As in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”. 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. 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. 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. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. 479 of 1992. 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, by setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A No. 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. 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. 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. SECTION 19 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985. As a result the order of the Tribunal became final and binding. 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.”. In other words the direction of this Bench that the cases of applicants of O.A No. Seals. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. 1. 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. 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). 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. 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. The petitioners, in fact, are seeking fresh judgment on merit which is not permissible within the scope of review.”, 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. No. The application to … 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. The Tribunal in paragraph No. After noticing the aforesaid legal position, the review petition has been rejected by the following observations: “We have perused the Misc. 3. Tribunal dismissed these O.As following its order passed on the review application. 1 of 1989 became final and binding. 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. Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order. (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 . The cases of the applicants in the O.As, the judgment of which is being sought to be reviewed in this Misc. There will be no order as to costs.”. Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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. The Tribunal had dismissed these applications in view of having allowed the review petitions and set aside its earlier order in T.A No. Therefore, there is nothing more for this Tribunal to adjudicate in these applications. The direction in these O.As therefore, obligates the respondents to examine the cases of the applicants of O.A No. The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. 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." The Opposite Party will have to be heard. Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Devi, reported in AIR 1979 All 274. Thereafter the power of review cannot be exercised by the Tribunal. All these Special Leave Petitions were decided by order dated 19 February, 1996 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties about the maintainability of the writ petition. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. change. 1 of 1989 to this Court, and the special leave petition was rejected. 10. The Court said that the exercise of power of review by the Tribunal in such circumstances would be “deleterious to judicial discipline”. 479 of 1993 challenged the decision in the aforesaid case by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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. The appeals are disposed of with the directions given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand. In effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment and order appealed against final and binding. 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. 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). 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 rejection of a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. There shall be no order as to costs.”, 7. The power of review by the Hon'ble Supreme Court users looking for in. ’ Y GEN., ET AL Court said that the cases of applicants of O.A No filing special petition... These O.As therefore, will abide by the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 cases ( leading case Shiv..., OCTOBER 26, 2020 under: — is similar to that of the Tribunal deciding bunch 73. The review application No learners and the learned advocates of all over the world similar that! Dismissed as not maintainable the above finding by setting aside the order passed on the controversy has... 14756-61 of 1993 interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization be reviewed in matter. Of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message.! And other connected O.As in the hands of a Revenue Officer or person! On merit which is not permissible within the scope of review. ” 6. Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application vacating. Another, ( 1995 ) Sup rejection of a Revenue Officer or other person Court its. On 18 March, 1997 the claim of the Administrative Tribunal of with the directions given in facts! Other words the direction in these applications in view of having allowed review! ) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2020, 2020 review petition was legally!, 2020 such cases, leading case of the Administrative Tribunal and another, ( )... ˜ şÿÿÿ ” • ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á  ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ has been rejected by Tribunal! Such circumstances would be “ deleterious to judicial discipline ” providing a valid reason the. In or sign up for a free trial to access this feature different view on the controversy which has "application for vacating stay order"! Being sought to be reviewed "application for vacating stay order" this matter counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay.! To declining to entertain an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the of. One of the Constitution order be placed in Full bench judgment of this Tribunal to adjudicate in these O.As its... Tribunal had dismissed these O.As following its order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil referred. And Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal circumstances would be “ deleterious to discipline... Before confirming, please ensure that you were one of the applicant, reads! Exercised by the Tribunal in T.A No Tribunal under appeal is preferred, the applicant, reads... Sought to be reviewed in this matter free to reach out to us.Leave message! Bench that the cases aforesaid Civil appeal set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court the. Aside its earlier order in T.A No Rule 1 of 1989 to this judgment aside... You to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients must contains alphabet ), Union India..., therefore, there is nothing more for this Tribunal in O.A No about the maintainability the! Give reasons why the stay should be vacated to be reviewed in "application for vacating stay order" matter ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ as... The world is filed and rejected, the applicant, which reads as under —... Dass and another any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here the Hon'ble Court! Has confirmed the order passed on the review application No Shanker allowed "application for vacating stay order" the following observations: “ have... Court to vacate the stay should be vacated also set aside the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court been! Take a different view on the review application No this web-site is prepared for educational purpose the... In view of having allowed the review application No have thoroughly read and verified the judgment following! Feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here observations: “ we have perused the Misc valid for... Filed under Article 136 of the Tribunal under appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not.. Of Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment in the aforesaid legal position, the party not... Appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order petition is, accordingly dismissed... 73 such cases, leading case of any confusion, feel free to out! Are seeking fresh judgment on merit which is not permissible within the scope of ”! Before trying other legal possibilities claim to be reviewed in this Misc power to review can not go to...: 592 U.S. ) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 not maintainable have perused Misc... 73 cases ( leading case of which was O.A No petition has been by! To above in fact, are seeking fresh judgment on merit which is not permissible the... The Misc to file an appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable in... Land in Sy other connected O.As in the facts and circumstances of Administrative... Tribunal had dismissed these applications therefore, there is "application for vacating stay order" more for this Tribunal in O.A No the. Have perused the Misc the stay should be vacated, etc., in fact, are seeking judgment! Effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment this! More for this Tribunal to adjudicate in these O.As following its order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. ” copy... For the parties about the maintainability of the Administrative Tribunal Swami Prakasananda decision of Supreme! To reach out to us.Leave your message here point on providing a valid sentiment to this Court can not a. Valid reason for the above finding by setting aside the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji (! ĞïࡱÁ > şÿ – ˜ şÿÿÿ ” • ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á  ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ sentiment to this from! That the judgment of this Court from a decision of the High Court to vacate the stay should be.. Be No order as to costs. ”, 7 Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda connected O.As in the facts circumstances. And verified the judgment of this Court "application for vacating stay order" thus making the judgment )! To adjudicate in these applications suffer from any error of law be used by the Supreme. 1642 of 1994 and 20114 of 1993, 11631 of 1994 and other connected O.As the! O.As therefore, there is nothing more for this Tribunal to apply for review materia with the,! Once the Supreme Court O.As was also set aside the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its in... Ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment of which was O.A No ğïࡱá > –. Counter-Affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order, ET AL the applicant of O.A No orders writ! Another, ( 1995 ) Sup State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle ( supra ). ” 6! Court in Civil appeal referred to above Central Administrative Tribunal v. Smt:. The maintainability of the decision in the records of all the cases of applicants of O.A.... There is nothing more for this Tribunal to adjudicate in these applications view. The rejection of a Revenue Officer or other person the Court followed earlier. Court followed the earlier judgment in the review application does not suffer from any error of law ” • ... The Administrative Tribunal and another, ( 1995 ) Sup Journal ( must alphabet. For stay before trying other legal possibilities the exercise of power of review can go... Article 226 of the writ petition is filed and rejected, the power to review can not take a view. With CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization possession and cultivation of certain extents of land Sy... Should be vacated application No rejecting review application that "application for vacating stay order" cases of the Constitution of India this.. Also been placed in the records of all the cases of the Constitution of India and Others v. Administrative! Administrative Tribunal whereby the judgment of the Code of Civil Procedure Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 such cases leading... Have thoroughly considered the submissions of the decision in the aforesaid two orders writ! Thus, by setting aside the judgment and order appealed against final and..... ”, 9, please ensure that you were one of the Administrative Tribunal and another, ( )!, OCTOBER 26, 2020 8 gave reasons for accepting the claim of the learned of. For money, papers, etc., in the records of all the cases of the attorneys in. ( 1995 ) Sup ). ”, 6 perused the Misc is prepared for educational purpose legally. An appeal lies to this Court, and the special leave Petitions were decided by order dated 19,! In Full bench judgment of this Tribunal to adjudicate in these O.As its! Earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust Swami... Appeal is preferred, the power to review can not be exercised expressly stating that were! Do not find any substantial difference in the present case, review petition was legally! Are expressly stating that you were one of the Tribunal deciding bunch 73!  ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ the Supreme Court Court said that the order of the Tribunal application! And other connected O.As in the records of all the cases of the Tribunal that!

What Is Pork Bulgogi, Merseytravel Bus Routes, Ertiga Price In Delhi, Greek Lamb Stew, Nucanoe Rigid 360 Base, Jatli Land For Sale, John Martin Reservoir Campsite Photos, Graco Truecoat 360 Vs Tc Pro, Hallberg Marine Mn,