ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION XV
SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IA 12-13/2013
in Petition(s) for
Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil)
No(s).29956-29957/2011
(From the
judgement and order
dated 19/08/2011 in
DBSANo.493/2010, DBSA
No.494/2010,DBCRP No.86/2011,DBCRP No.87/2011
of The
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR)
L.I.C.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA &
ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)
(for substitution and
dismissal of SLP
and seeking permission
to file
additional documents and with
prayer for interim relief and office report )
Date:08/08/2013These Petitions
were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashok
Panigrahi,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.K.Singh,Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made
the following
ORDER
The applications for
substitution are allowed
in
terms of the prayer made.
This matter has been listed for
consideration of I.A. Nos.12-
13 of 2013 filed on behalf
of respondent No.l
for dismissal of the
special leave petitions on the ground that the petitioner-Life Insurance
Corporation of India has not questioned judgment dated 21.01.2011 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the
special appeals
filed by it against the order of the learned Single Judge.
Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for
the
applicant invited our attention to judgment dated 8.4.2013 passed by a
co-
ordinate Bench in S.L.P.(C) No. 4616 of
2010 Municipal Corporation
of
Delhi v. Yashwant Singh
Negi and argued
that the special leave
petitions are liable to be
dismissed because the
petitioner has not
challenged the judgment of the High Court whereby
the special appeals
were dismissed. He also relied
upon the judgment in DSR Steel (Private)
Limited v. State of Rajasthan and others (2012) 6 SCC 782 in support
of
this argument.
Dr.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior
counsel appearing for
petitioner-Life Insurance Corporation submitted that the defect
pointed
out by learned senior counsel for the applicant is purely technical
and
this should not be made a ground to deny
substantive relief to
the
petitioner. He relied upon the judgments in Kunhayammed
and others v.
State of Kerala and another (2000) 6 SCC
359 and Eastern
Coal Fields
Limited v. Dugal Kumar (2008)
14 SCC 295
and argued that
once the
petitions filed for review of the main judgment were dismissed, the same
stood automatically merged in
the review order
and the petitioner's
failure to challenge the same is inconsequential.
In our view, in the absence of
challenge to the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court vide which the
special
appeals filed by the
petitioner were dismissed,
the special leave
petitions filed against the order passed in the review petitions do not
merit acceptance, more so, because the learned senior
counsel for the
petitioner could not show that the order under challenge is vitiated
by
an error apparent on the face of the record.
With the above observations,
I.A.Nos.12-13 of 2013 are allowed
and the special leave petitions are dismissed. The interim order passed
by this Court stands automatically vacated.
However, it is made
clear that this
order shall not
preclude the SLP petitioner
from filing special
leave petitions
against the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court by which
the special appeals were dismissed. It is also made clear that this
order
shall not entitle the SLP petitioner to claim condonation of delay as a
matter of right and the application, if any, filed for this purpose will
be decided on its own merits.
|(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati
Arora) |
|Court Master | |Court Master