Review applications filed against the High Court judgment allowing appeals challenging Section 47-A orders pending specific performance. The single judge held no error apparent on the face of the record required entertaining the review and dismissed the petitions.
Review Application Nos. 58 and 64 of 2018 were dismissed; no costs awarded.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Review Application Nos. 58 and 64 of 2018
Review Applications have been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 114 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A Nos.168 and 169 of 2016, dated 22.08.2017 on the file of the High Court.
2
For Review Petitioners : Mrs. A.Madhumathi Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr. K.Bijai Sundar
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
The Review Applications have been filed seeking for review of
the common judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in C.M.A Nos.168
and 169 of 2016
be invoked in a case where the proceedings for specific performance were pending. I had also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers Jewellers, reported in 2008 (1) CTC 60 and Residence Welfare Association, Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2009 (14)
SCC 716 equivalent to 2009 (3) LW 316 , after noticing the above two judgments, I had concluded that the judgment in Residence Welfar e Association case, cited supra, will be more apt to the questions
3
involved in these appeals, I allowed the appeals holding that the very exercise of the power under Section 47-A does not meet the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Section 47-A or the Rules framed thereunder. Though the judgment of this Court in WP (MD) Nos.1922 of 2004 etc. dated 01.07.2007 has been referred to in the grounds of review the said judgment does not relate to the point in issue in the appeals. Hence, I do not see any error apparent on the face of the record to enable to entertain the review. The Review Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
21.03.2018
jv
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order
To
4
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
Jv
Review Application Nos. 58 and 64 of 2018
21.03.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether error apparent on the face of the record exists warranting a review of the judgment dismissing the appeals challenging Section 47-A orders.
Whether the cited judgment in WP (MD) Nos.1922 of 2004 relates to the point in issue in the present appeals.
Whether the mandatory requirements of Section 47-A were met in the challenged proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan vs. Khandaka Jain JewellersReferred¶19
2008 (1) CTC 60
Residence Welfare Association, Noida v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶19
2009 (14) SCC 716 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Tamilnadu Inspector General of Registration & Principal Revenue Authority
The Sub Registrar
G.Mary Chellathai
M.G.M. Diamond Beach Reasons (P) Ltd.
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
