Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Administrative Committee Case Due to Lack of Merit. Review Petition Fails as No Error Apparent on Record Justifying Interference in Previous Judgment.

  • 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 Court condoned a delay of 62 days in filing the Review Petition but ultimately dismissed it, stating that the grounds presented did not reveal any apparent error on record that would warrant interference. Additionally, the Court reviewed an application from the Review Petitioner seeking action against the respondents under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was also dismissed for lack of merit. The judgment emphasized the correctness of the initial decision based on a thorough evaluation of facts and law, leading to the conclusion that the Review Petition lacked sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

Headnote

A) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - Dismissal of Review Petition - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 340 - 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 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 in Review Jurisdiction.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition, finding no error apparent on record and upholding the previous decision regarding the order of punishment.

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) 189

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 previous judgment and initiate action against respondents.

Filing Reason

Delay in filing the Review Petition and seeking reconsideration of the earlier decision.

Previous Decisions

The order of punishment was upheld by the High Court and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

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

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the previous decision was incorrect and sought review. Respondents contended that the Review Petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that a Review Petition must demonstrate an error apparent on record to justify 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 the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal against the High Court's decision regarding the Administrative Committee's order.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 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...