The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the Union of India against a previous judgment upholding case transfer and dismissing the petition. The Court found no merit and noted the petitioner was essentially re-arguing merits, which is impermissible in a review.
Review application dismissed; no grounds made out for review.
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.
$~2(Single)
UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Adv.
versus
M/S JAY SHREE METALS AND ENGG. CO. .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
O R D E R % 13.08.2024
REVIEW PET. 275/2024 (by petitioner for review of judgment dt. 05.07.2024)
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2024 at 14:19:32
05.07.2024. In paragraphs 21 to 23 of the judgment, this Court clearly explained its reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s contentions. For completeness, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-
“21. It is noticed that the learned Trial Court issued court notices to the petitioner upon transfer of the case from this Court to District Courts on 09.05.2017 and 03.10.2017. Thereafter, the court notice was issued to the Panel Counsel in High Court on 19.04.2018. It is an undisputed position that the court notice issued to the Panel Counsel of petitioner department in High Court was served.
22. Its lamentable state that officers of the petitioner department did not care to make any enquiry regarding the progress of the petition from the Panel Counsel for over a period of Four years which reflects regretful penitent of the department for being grossly negligent and ignorant about the petition filed by the petitioner department in court of law despite being equipped with a law department and assemblage of Advocates and law officers.
23. The petitioner has also failed to explain as to why its Panel Counsel did not inform the petitioner about the receipt of the court notice. Even otherwise, there is no explanation for not approaching the Trial Court immediately upon the receipt of the notice of the execution petition and a further three months time was spent in filing the restoration application.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2024 at 14:19:32
cannot be permitted within the limited ambit of review jurisdiction.
SHALINDER KAUR, J
AUGUST 13, 2024 SDS
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2024 at 14:19:32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition warrants interference or needs to be dismissed for lack of merit.
Whether the petitioner is merely attempting to re-argue the matter on merits outside the ambit of review jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ibrat Faizan vs Omaxe Builhome Private LimitedDistinguished¶23
Ibrat Faizan vs Omaxe Builhome Private Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620 · Who else cites this
Radha Bhattad vs Rashmi Cement LimitedDistinguished¶23
Radha Bhattad vs Rashmi Cement Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2570 · Who else cites this
M.M. Thomas vs. State Op Kerala And AnrDistinguished¶23
M.M. Thomas vs. State Op Kerala And Anr AIR 2000 SCC 540 · Who else cites this
UNION OF INDIA
M/S JAY SHREE METALS AND ENGG. CO.
SHALINDER KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
