Partly allowed

Biju Bharat and 70 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2014NMW/65/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in chambers, disposed of a Notice of Motion regarding late condonation of delay in filing a review petition. A separate order dismissed the review petition, holding that grounds challenging the judgment on merits do not attract review jurisdiction under Section 114 CrPC/CCP read with Order XLVII Rule 1.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion disposed of; Review Petition dismissed as devoid of merit due to lack of meritorious grounds for review.

Biju Bharat and 70 Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 nmw.65.14.rpwl.3.14.wp.2654.12.901.sxw

¶2

kps

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.65 OF 2014 IN REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.3 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.3 OF 2014 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2654 OF 2012

¶6

Biju Bharat and others.

¶7

..Applicants/ Petitioners

¶8

-versus-

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh, for the Applicants/ Petitioners.

¶12

Mr.Rajiv Narula i/by Jhangiani Narula & Associates, for the Respondent No.6.

¶13

Mr.Vijay D. Patil, for the Respondent No.2.

¶14

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶15

G.S. PATEL, JJ.

¶16

(In Chambers)

¶17

Date : 04^th April, 2014.

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

(a) Notice of Motion No.65/2014:-

¶20

1 Perused the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. The delay of 43 days in filing the Review Petition is explained satisfactorily. The same is condoned. The Notice of Motion is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶21

2 nmw.65.14.rpwl.3.14.wp.2654.12.901.sxw

¶22

(b) Review Petition (Lodging) No.3 of 2014:-

¶23

2 Having heard Mr.Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this Review Petition, we are of the view that the grounds which are pressed would not enable us to exercise our review jurisdiction. As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Honourable Supreme Court the jurisdiction of review is not akin to an appeal or revision, the order under review cannot be assailed or challenged on merits. That can be done only before a higher court in appeal. All grounds and submissions which are canvassed before us point out certain omissions and errors in the judgment under review. In the garb of our jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, we cannot exercise appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The attempt to seek exercise of such jurisdiction, is not permissible. The Review Petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

(G.S. Patel, J)

¶25

(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)

Biju Bharat and 70 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Bharat and 70 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Balu Ubhe Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sagar Balu Ubhe

Imperial Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Biju Bharat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

K.V. Ganapathy Vs ------

Sandeep Nahar and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.