TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e required to be passed on the application for impleadment as party respondent. - Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2671/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2013 - MR. SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR MR. M.Y. EQBAL, JJ. For Appellant Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv., Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Adv., Mr. S. Hari Haran, Adv., Ms. Charu Mathur,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. J.M. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Raka B. Phookan, Adv., Ms. Neha Tandon Phookan, Adv., Mr. Shailesh Madiyal ,Adv ORDER The special leave petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Since the special leave petition has been dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on the application for impleadment as party respondent. (Signed reportable order is placed on the file) R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. In support of the submission that the present special leave petition is not maintainable, Mr. Bhushan has relied on three judgments of this Court. In Shanker Motiram Nale versus Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput reported in (1994) 2 SCC 753, it has been held that the special leave petition which has been filed against the order rejecting the review petition would be barred under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in Suseel Finance and Leasing Company versus M. Lata and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 675. This Court held that not only was it bound by the aforesaid judgment in Shanker Motiram Nale case, but was also in agreement with it. The law laid down in both the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he main order with the order in review has been merely noticed, and not accepted. The preliminary objection seems to have been rejected on the ground that since leave has been granted in the special leave petition, it would not be proper to dismiss the same without hearing the parties. In the present case, the preliminary objection has been raised at the threshold. In addition, it is an inescapable fact that the judgment rendered in Eastern Coalfields Limited has been rendered in ignorance of the earlier judgments of the Benches of coequal strength, rendering the same per incuriam. Therefore, it cannot be elevated to the status of precedent. In view of the above, we accept the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
