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