TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the judgment which is not permissible. In INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2011 (7) TMI 1109 - SUPREME COURT ] the Supreme Court examined whether a final judgment of the Supreme Court could be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications. It was held that a final judgment cannot be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications where all possible legal remedies have been fully exhausted. In the case before the Supreme Court two interlocutory applications had been filed after the Supreme Court had pronounced the judgment. It was held that permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgments by filing repeated I.As is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority. 2. EIILM University had prayed for setting aside the show cause notice dated 03.02.2015 issued by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) and the subsequent proceedings consequential thereto. 3. The principal ground seeking to quash the show cause notice under section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 by the Adjudicating Authority was that it was issued by a Bench constituted under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the PMLA, 2002 which did not have a Judicial Member. 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing all the parties to the writ petition and examining sub-section (1), (2) and (3) and clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by this Court has been filed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement on 08.11.2022 after nearly eight years. The applicant prays for clarification as to whether Member (Judicial) and Member from the field of Law of the Adjudicating Authority under section 6 (3) (a) (ii) of PMLA, 2002 are the same? 7. The application states that pursuant to the judgment dated 22.09.2015 of this Court and in compliance thereto file was moved for reconstitution of Bench of the Adjudicating Authority with the appropriate Ministry of Finance and it was learnt that the Central Government has published a Notification issued vide Gazette of India dated October, 03-09, 2015 for appointment of Shri G.C. Mishra as Member from the field of Law w.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (Judicial) appointed under section 6 (3) (a) of PMLA, 2002 who has to be a District Judge and the Government has not appointed Judicial Member as directed by this Court. 12. According to the applicant since then the provisional attachment orders are kept in abeyance and status quo has been maintained. 13. It is also stated that the appeal before this Court against the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority was rejected on the ground of delay. 14. The application as well as the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the applicant argues that section 6 (3) (a) of the PMLA, 2002 does not mention Judicial Member and therefore, it is not the mandate of section 6 (3) (a) of PMLA, 2002 to have a Judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties including the present applicant and by a reason judgment the lis was decided by the learned Single Judge. Evidently and admittedly this judgment dated 22.09.2015 has not been appealed against. 19. The Supreme Court in numerous judgments has held very clearly that such practice of filing application for modification/clarification of judgment rendered must be deprecated as in actual what it seeks is a review or revision of the judgment which is not permissible. 20. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India [(2011) 8 SCC 161] the Supreme Court examined whether a final judgment of the Supreme Court could be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications. It was held that a final judgment cannot be reope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 22.09.2015 within the prescribed time if they were not satisfied with it. However, the applicant chose not to do so for almost eight years. The application in fact states that it sought to comply with the judgment dated 22.09.2015. The present application for modification/clarification is evidently a device to persuade this Court to revisit, reopen and reverse the judgment dated 22.09.2015. This is clearly impermissible. Even if this Court was to consider the application for modification/clarification as one filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is the inherent power of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice it cannot come to aid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
