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

Duolingo Changes September 2020, Best Yugioh Booster Box, Egyptian Goulash Calories, Positano Bay Ridge Yelp, Medieval Merchant Daily Life, Korean Yeast Bread,