Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2008 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 636 - HC - Indian LawsApplication for contempt and an Application for review - willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order - mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in relation to the premises - Power of review - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that the expressions "any other sufficient reason" "mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously, that is to say, to excusable failure to bring to the notice of the Court new or important matters or error apparent on the face of the record." Upon an application for review the Court cannot proceed to deal with the case on the merits as if on an appeal. The Supreme Court of India in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors. [1979 (1) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT] holds that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. Power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may, also, be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal - I am not satisfied that the judgment under review is erroneous on the face of it. This application for review is filed to re-argue the very same points rightly rejected by this Court - Therefore, this application for review stands rejected. Application for contempt - HELD THAT:- Non-compliance of the order by the contemnors is admitted. By order dated December 3, 1998 this Court, inter alia, directed the respondents in the writ petition to mutate the name of the first petitioner, that is W. H. Targett (India) Limited, in the register instead and in place of Marble Trading Company Limited - An application for contempt is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the said order. After filing of the application for contempt, an application for review is filed. In the application for review it is alleged that the charge of name to W H. Targett (India) Limited and the application for mutation to record the name of W. H. Targett (India) Limited are fraught with uncertainty, which was not brought to the attention of this Court. As already, found that in the application for review virtually the points taken in the affidavit-in-opposition are reiterated. It is not open to the contemnors to give a wrong interpretation of the order. In any view of the matter, the view so taken by the contemnors are not found to be legally sustainable. I hold that the stand taken by the contemnors is not bona fide. The contemnors are bound to comply with the order of this Court. Therefore, this is a fit case for taking action in contempt. However, as the application for review was filed, in order to giving contemnors an opportunity to purge the contempt before I pass the sentence, I adjourn the matter for 4 (four) weeks to enable the contemnors to report compliance, failing which this Court will proceed to pass appropriate orders in respect of the contempt. If not, the contemnors will run the risk of being sentenced. The office is directed to put up this matter on July 2, 2008 under the heading for orders.
|