Remanded

M/S. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rameshchandra Biyani and Anr. .

Bombay HC28 Mar 2007APPP/104/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an interim order dated 6 December 2006 which had set aside a lower court's decision. The recall was made because parties were later shown a detailed reasoned order that contradicted the assumption of a non-reasoned order upon which the interim order was based.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 6th December 2006 is recalled and the Criminal Application No.3606 of 2006 is restored to the file; the applicant is allowed to amend the application.

M/S. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

MST

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2007
 IN
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3606 OF 2006

¶5

 Stock Holding Corporation of
 India Limited, Mumbai Applicant

¶6

 versus

¶7

 1. Rameshchandra Biyani,
 Kolkatta.

¶8

 2. State of Maharashtra Respondents

¶9

 Mr.P.D.Desai for petitioner.

¶10

 Mr.N.K.Thakore i/by Prakash Naik for respondents.

¶11

 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶12

 DATE : 28th March 2007

¶13

 PC :

¶14

 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶15

 parties. The prayer in this criminal application
 in substance is for recalling the judgement and
 order dated 6th December 2006 passed in Criminal
 Application No.3606 of 2006.

¶16

 2. The first respondent filed a revision
 application before the Sessions Court for
 challenging an order passed by the learned

¶17

 ((-2-))

¶18

MST

¶19

 Metropolitan Magistrate directing process to be
 issued on a complaint filed by the applicant
 herein. As there was a delay in filing the
 revision application, an application for
 condonation of delay was filed by the first
 respondent. By an order dated 8th September 2006
 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai
 allowed the application for condonation of delay
 and directed the office of the City Civil and
 Sessions Court to register the revision
 application. The order recorded in the Roznama
 shows that the delay was condoned and the
 revision application was dismissed.

¶20

 3. Criminal Application No.3606 of 2006 was
 filed by the first respondent for challenging the
 order of learned Additional Sessions Judge by
 which revision application was dismissed.

¶21

 4. By order dated 6th December 2006, this Court
 partly allowed the criminal application by
 setting aside the order dated 8th September 2006
 and by directing the learned Additional Sessions
 Judge to hear the revision application afresh and
 to pass a reasoned order. The said order was
 passed on the ground that no reasons were
 assigned for dismissing the revision application

¶22

 ((-3-))
 MST

¶23

 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

¶24

 5. In the present application it is brought to
 the notice of this Court that a detailed and
 reasoned order was in fact passed on 8th
 September 2006 on revision application filed by
 the first respondent.

¶25

 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the
 applicant in this application is that the order
 dated 6th December 2006 was passed by this Court
 as it was not brought to the notice of this Court
 that a separate judgement and order was delivered
 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the
 revision application and for reasons recorded
 therein, the revision application was rejected.
 Therefore, the prayer in this application is for
 recalling the order dated 6th December 2006.

¶26

 7. I have considered the submissions of learned
 advocate for applicant. In paragraph no.3 of the
 order dated 6th December 2006 it is recorded
 that:-

¶27

 "3. There is no dispute between the
 learned Counsel for the parties that
 while dismissing the Revision Application
 filed by the applicant, no reasons have

¶28

 ((-4-))

¶29

MST

¶30

 been assigned by the learned Additional
 Sessions Judge. The Revision Application
 appears to have been dismissed on the
 very day on which the application for
 condonation of delay was allowed by
 passing a reasoned order. The learned
 counsel for the first respondent submits
 that the submissions on delay condonation
 application and revision application were
 heard together. Even if the learned
 Judge has heard the revision application
 along with the application for
 condonation of delay, he could have
 disposed of the revision application on
 merits only after assigning reasons.
 That has not been done in this case and
 the revision application has ben
 dismissed by passing a single line non
 speaking order."

¶31

 8. In the present application, the applicant has
 alleged in paragraph no.8 that :-

¶32

 "8) It is submitted that the said
 Criminal Revision Application No.1086 of
 2006 was heard and disposed of by the Ld.
 Sessions Judge by passing a detail order
 assigning the reason therein. The
 Respondent No.1, herein, merely obtained
 a copy of Roznama and made a submission
 on the basis of the same that the said
 Revision Application was not heard on
 merits and that the Ld. Sessions Judge
 dismissed the Revision Application
 without assigning any reason. The said
 submission was false to the knowledge of
 the Respondent No.1 herein since the
 Revision Application was argued on
 merits, the Judgement was also cited
 across the bar by the Ld. Advocate for
 the petitioner herein in support of his
 submission and prayed for dismissal of
 the Revision Application of Respondent
 No.1 herein."

¶33

 ((-5-))
 MST

¶34

 It must be noted here that even the learned
 counsel appearing for the applicant herein made a
 statement on 6th December 2006 before this Court
 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
 not assigned any reasons for rejecting the
 revision application filed by the first
 respondent. Till today no grievance has been
 made on behalf of the applicant that the
 statement to that effect recorded in paragraph
 no.3 of the order dated 6th December 2006 passed
 by this Court is incorrect. Thus, it appears to
 me that both the parties were not aware on 6th
 December 2006 that a separate judgement and order
 was delivered by the learned Additional Sessions
 Judge in criminal revision application recording
 detailed reasons for rejecting the same.

¶35

 9. It is true that under the provisions of Code
 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 there is no specific
 power of review. However, in the case of State
 of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and
 another reported in (2004)6-SCC-522 the Apex
 Court has observed as under :-

¶36

 "... ... ... All courts, whether civil
 or criminal, possess in the absence of
 any express provision, as inherent in
 their constitution, all such powers as

¶37

 ((-6-))

¶38

MST

¶39

 are necessary to do the right and to undo
 a wrong in course of administration of
 justice on the principle quande lex
 aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id
 sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when
 the law gives a person anything, it gives
 him that without which it cannot exist").
 ... ..."

¶40

 10. In the present case, when the order dated
 6th December 2006 was passed by this Court, both
 the contesting parties were not aware that the
 revision application has been decided by a
 separate reasoned judgement. Therefore, the
 order dated 6th December 2006 proceeds on the
 assumption that no reasons have been recorded by
 the learned Additional Sessions Judge for
 rejecting the revision application. Now, it is
 pointed out that what was argued before this
 Court on 6th December 2006 is factually
 incorrect. Therefore, the order dated 6th
 December 2006 deserves to be recalled. Hence, I
 pass the following order.

¶41

 11. ORDER :-

¶42

 (a) The order dated 6th December 2006 is recalled
 and Criminal Application No.3606 of 2006 is
 restored to the file of this Court;

¶43

 (b) The office is directed to place the said
 criminal application for admission before the
 appropriate Court taking up such application for

¶44

 ((-7-))

¶45

MST

¶46

 admission;

¶47

 (c) The applicant is allowed to amend the
 Criminal Application No.3606 of 2006 for adding
 grounds and for annexing a true copy of the order
 passed in Revision Application within a period of
 four weeks from today.

¶48

 (A.S.OKA, J.)

M/S. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rameshchandra Biyani and Anr. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rameshchandra Biyani and Anr. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Anil Krishna Zunjurwad and Anr. Vs Smt. Indumati Harish Borse

Arjun Baburao Ekke Vs Mohemmed Salim Abdul Karim Sheikh

Vasant R.Purohit Vs Rajesh @ Gautam K.Bhosale

Rayagiri Ratgiri Gosavi Vs Shrikant R. Urunkar and Others.

Bapu Shantaran Jangale Vs M/S. Popular Car Bazaar and Ors.

Umar Kasam Memon and Ors. Vs Mr. Nitin Karir Pune Minicipal Corporation and Ors.