High Court Bombay; review petition dismissed. Submission that witness address was unknown was rejected as re-arguing a point already considered on merits by the Tribunal, which deemed secondary evidence permissible.
Review Petition No. 69 of 2014 dismissed with reserve of right to approach Apex Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/2
RPW/69/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.69 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2358 OF 2003
Union of India & Ors.
….. Petitioners.
V/s
Kiran Champaklal Shah …... Respondent.
Mr. Y.R. Mishra alongwith Mr. N.R. Prajapati for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S. Rao alongwith Mr. Prashant Kamble for the Respondent.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE: 9th February, 2016 (In Chamber at 2.35 P.M.)
P.C.:-
2/2
RPW/69/2014
Dr. Naveeta could not be served, it was open for the applicants to adduce secondary evidence and to conclude the inquiry. We are therefore of the view that no ground is made out for reviewing our own order. Moreover, this cannot be the ground for review since the submission was considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal and we had observed that the Tribunal had rightly given the said finding. Making the same submission again would amount to re-arguing the same point before this Court in review petition. This is not permissible.
(M.S. SONAK, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
bdpps
Union of India & Ors.
Kiran Champaklal Shah
V. M. Kanade
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
