Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Administrative Committee Case Due to Lack of Apparent Error. Review Petition Fails as Grounds Raised Did Not Establish Any Error Justifying Interference.

  • 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 Administrative 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 relevant provisions and the facts, the Court determined that the earlier judgment did not warrant interference, as it was based on a correct understanding of the law and facts. The Review Petition was dismissed on the grounds that it did not reveal any apparent error on record. Additionally, the Court dismissed an application from the Review Petitioner seeking action against the respondents under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, deeming it devoid of merit. The judgment was delivered by Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat on December 14, 2021.

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, thus justifying the dismissal of the Review Petition. Held that the previous decision 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 reveal any error apparent on record. The application for action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also dismissed for lack of merit.

Law Points

  • Review jurisdiction
  • error apparent on record
  • application for action under Section 340
  • Code of Criminal Procedure
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (12) 188

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 punishment by the Administrative Committee.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to review the decision of the Administrative Committee.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed errors in the previous judgment.

Previous Decisions

The earlier decision of the High Court was found to be incorrect.

Issues

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

Submissions/Arguments

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that a Review Petition must demonstrate an error apparent on record to warrant interference, which was not established in this case.

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 upheld by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 340
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
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.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Land Tribunal Order Confirming Eviction of Tenant for Non-Payment of Rent Under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding default in payment...