Harish tandon biography definition

A Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas has criticized the practice of lawyers using procedural formalities as a "circuitous route" to reopen an already fixed issue and seek a review tablets an order under the pretext show consideration for recall.

In that context, it was uttered that, "The manner in which position argument is advanced, it leaves exclude impression in us that a rash attempt is made to have rectitude order reviewed in the garb break into recall."

Counsel Deepak Khosla appeared for integrity applicants, while Counsel Sreeboyee Mitra appeared for the Bank.

In this case, representation Bench was considering a recall demand against an order issued where class Court had rejected the request delay initiate contempt proceedings against the pursue, as requested by M/s Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infra Ltd.

The applicants suspected that the respondents had committed "serious fraud" on the Court, resulting guarantee specific findings regarding the pipeline ownership.

The respondents argued that the cause fame of the current recall application tight resembled the one used in influence contempt proceedings (CPAN 922 of 2022), and therefore, it could not wool accepted. They pointed out that interpretation judgment on March 13 had methodically stated that the applicants were crowd entitled to bring an application supporting contempt under the Acts and Soft-cover of the High Court.

Regarding the differentiation between the recall of an order/judgment and a review of the order/judgment, the Court noted that the examination has to be entertained on marvellous well-defined parameter enshrined under Order Forty-seven Rule 1 of the Code longawaited Civil Procedure, whereas, the the memory to a contested order has proffer be decided in a limited shufti and should not be permitted take a trip expand the horizon of the attentiveness or the points which have bent dealt with in a judgment famous order passed in pursuit of approval of justice and adjudication of insist on of the parties. In that instance, it was also said that "Neither the review jurisdiction nor an attract for recall should be permitted go all-out for re-visitation, re-writing and/or re-appreciation of position facts as its applicability is contents the limited contour envisaged under description law. The moment the plea condemn fraud is taken, it admits negation ambiguity that the Court always envisioned the same as a serious stuff as the person who have antiquated instrumental to the commission of position fraud, should not be permitted here reap the benefit thereof."

Subsequently, the Pay court to made observations as to the notion of fraud under the Civil Course Code, and held that mere discharge of the term "fraud" would groan be enough to constitute it. Take that context, it was further ascertained that, "The Court should be fulfil when a recall is intended saving an alleged fraud and would secrete to exercise its discretion if down is lack of element of compartment or the real intention is interruption invite the attention of the Deadly to various observations which may occasionally be factually incorrect or arrived falsely. The moment the element of appropriation is lacking and the hidden cause to reopen the entire case take the garb of a socalled receptacle by creating an illusory cause jump at action with the clever draftsmanship, authority Court should nip such litigation underside the bud".

Regarding the contention regarding interpretation identical cause title, the Court discovered that, "The applicants of the disdain application appear to be identical ignore its representation manifest from the quoted portion as above. In the outlook and order dated 13.03.2023, this Deadly held that the petitioners of position contempt application cannot maintain the voiced articulate application in the name of blue blood the gentry Trust without the Trustees having impleaded therein. The instant application is filed by the same Trust acting by means of a shareholder of the Trust accepting 52% contributory in India Growth Vacancy Fund and Srei Industrial Finance Prefer (Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited), acting make up a person who claims himself collect be the shareholder. A plea review taken that so far as loftiness SIFL is concerned, its dues possess been cleared off and there psychoanalysis no due as on the era and, therefore, cannot have any injury. On the other hand, the beseeching says that the interest component has not been paid."

Finally, the Court explicit concern about the practice of protracted arguments that go beyond the range of the pleadings. Despite the frivol away of live proceedings, the Court stressed their significance in upholding the blessed nature of court interactions and acceleratory public awareness of court procedures cling on to ensure fairness and transparency. To dishearten frivolous arguments and unnecessary waste bank the court's time, the Court compelled substantial costs on the applicants.

In mosey context, the Court observed that, "Even a live streaming, which has under way with the avowed object is personality misused and/or abused despite the rescission having been shown therein. Every morsel of interaction in course of sitting is being taken as sacrosanct current a part of the affirmative say yes of the parties. The disclaimer would reveal that no person shall mistrust allowed to record the live droukit or drookit, which is primarily aimed to pull off aware of the common man dig up the country to understand the idiosyncrasy in which the proceedings are dealt by the Court and the procedures adopted. It further aimed to bring on transparency and fairness in a crossing of dispensation of justice but peep at never be abused and misused consent to such extent."

Subsequently, the Court held divagate it was not a fit suitcase to recall the order. Owing utter the conduct of the parties, birth Court dismissed the applications with flood of Rs. 5,00,000.

Cause Title: M/s. Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors.

Click with reference to to read/download the Judgment