SHRI BHASUDEB DAS'S COMMENTS HAVE RE CREATED CONFUSION ON PAYMENT TO ALL/PETITIONERS.
THERE SHOULD BE NO CONFUSION AS THE SC HAD VACATED THEIR EARLIER ORDER IN THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.13. "The interim order passed by this Court stands automatically vacated."
PLEASE GO THRU THE FULL JUDGEMENT BELOW. LETS WAIT TILL FINAL ORDERS FROM JAIPUR HC.
WITH BEST WISHES
HK AGGARWAL
Please click here to read order of 8-8-2013 of SC.
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVS U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A 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:08/08/2013
These 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 O R D E R
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 2 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 . 2 0 1 3 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in S.L.P.(C) No. 4 6 1 6 of 2 0 1 0 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 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 6 SCC 7 8 2 i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s a r g u m e n t .
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 ( 2 0 0 0 ) 6 SCC 3 5 9 and Eastern Coal Fields Limited v. Dugal Kumar ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 4 SCC 2 9 5 a n d a r g u e d t h a t 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.
3 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) Court Master
(Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Mast