Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Administrative Committee Case Due to Lack of Apparent Error. Review Petition Found Devoid of Merit as No Error Established Under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India addressed a Review Petition arising from a prior Civil Appeal concerning a decision made by the Administrative Committee of the U.P. Milk Union & Dairy Federation. The petitioner, Jagpal Singh, sought to challenge the order of punishment imposed by the committee, which had been upheld by the High Court. The Review Petition was filed after a delay of 62 days, which the court condoned. However, the court rejected the application for listing the Review Petition in open court. Upon reviewing the case, the court determined that the previous judgment did not warrant interference as it was based on a correct understanding of the facts and applicable law. The court also dismissed the petitioner's application for initiating action against the respondents under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding it devoid of merit. Ultimately, the Review Petition was dismissed, affirming the earlier decision without identifying any apparent errors in the record.

Headnote

A) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - Dismissal of Review Petition - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court found that the grounds raised in the Review Petition did not establish any error apparent on record, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Held that the previous judgment was based on correct appreciation of facts and law (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Review Petition made out any error apparent on record to justify interference.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Review Petition was dismissed as the grounds raised did not establish any error apparent on record.

Law Points

  • Review jurisdiction
  • error apparent on record
  • dismissal of review petition
  • Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (12) 187

Review Petition(Civil) No. of 2021

2021-12-14

Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat

Jagpal Singh

Chairman Administrative Committee U.P. Milk Union & Dairy Federation Centralized Services

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review Petition against the order of the Administrative Committee.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to review the punishment order.

Filing Reason

Petitioner believed there was an error in the previous judgment.

Previous Decisions

The prior decision upheld the punishment imposed by the Administrative Committee.

Issues

Whether the Review Petition made out any error apparent on record to justify interference.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the previous judgment contained errors. Respondent maintained that the decision was correct and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Review Petition did not demonstrate any error apparent on record, thus affirming the previous judgment.

Judgment Excerpts

Delay of 62 days in preferring Review Petition is condoned. The grounds raised in the Review Petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference in Review Jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The Review Petition was filed after a delay of 62 days following the decision of the Administrative Committee, which was previously upheld by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 340
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 408 IPC Based on Admission and Audit Report. Petitioner's Admission of Misappropriation of Society Funds and Audit Report Showing Shortage Sufficient to Sustain Convictio...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Student to Appear for Third Year Examination Despite Backlog in First Year Subject. The court interpreted ATKT rules liberally to permit the petitioner to take the third year exam while clearing the first year backlog.