Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 28.12.2010, which included adverse remarks against the appellant, Dr. Uma Kant Panwar. The appellant challenged these remarks through a civil appeal after the respondent-State settled the claim payable to the contesting respondent. The Supreme Court heard the arguments from both parties and determined that the adverse remarks were no longer warranted due to the settlement. Consequently, the Court decided to expunge the remarks and set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal in part. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, reflecting the Court's intention to mitigate the impact of the High Court's strictures on the appellant.
Headnote
A) Judicial Review - Expungement of Remarks - High Court's Adverse Remarks - Not Applicable - The Supreme Court found that the respondent-State had settled the claim payable to the contesting respondent, leading to the decision to expunge the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellant. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal partly, directing parties to bear their own costs. Held that the remarks were no longer relevant due to the settlement (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellant should be expunged.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellant and set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the appeal partly. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Judicial remarks
- expungement of remarks
- appeal process
