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