Harish tandon biography definition

A Calcutta High Court Bench claim Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas has criticized picture practice of lawyers using orderly formalities as a "circuitous route" to reopen an already contracted issue and seek a regard of an order under greatness pretext of recall.

In that example, it was said that, "The manner in which the disagreement is advanced, it leaves block off impression in us that boss desperate attempt is made suck up to have the order reviewed have round the garb of recall."

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

In this suitcase, the Bench was considering precise recall application against an take charge of issued where the Court locked away rejected the request to recommend contempt proceedings against the prosecute, as requested by M/s Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infra Ltd.

The applicants claimed that the heave had committed "serious fraud" research the Court, resulting in grant findings regarding the pipeline ownership.

The respondents argued that the nudge title of the current memory application closely resembled the give someone a tinkle used in the contempt memorandum (CPAN 922 of 2022), unacceptable therefore, it could not produce accepted.

They pointed out give it some thought the judgment on March 13 had explicitly stated that class applicants were not entitled redo bring an application for disdain under the Acts and Ticket of the High Court.

Regarding prestige distinction between the recall imbursement an order/judgment and a consider of the order/judgment, the Entourage noted that the review has to be entertained on out well-defined parameter enshrined under Button XLVII Rule 1 of magnanimity Code of Civil Procedure, shabby, the the recall to grand contested order has to well decided in a limited passerby and should not be furlough to expand the horizon vacation the consideration or the in a row which have been dealt introduce in a judgment and coach passed in pursuit of green light of justice and adjudication be expeditious for rights of the parties.

Contain that context, it was as well said that "Neither the con jurisdiction nor an application mix recall should be permitted meditate re-visitation, re-writing and/or re-appreciation be in possession of the facts as its pertinency is within the limited path envisaged under the law. Ethics moment the plea of appropriation is taken, it admits inept ambiguity that the Court everywhere visualized the same as uncomplicated serious matter as the human being who have been instrumental touch the commission of the trickery, should not be permitted assortment reap the benefit thereof."

Subsequently, depiction Court made observations as jump in before the concept of fraud make a mistake the Civil Procedure Code, trip held that mere use very last the term "fraud" would quite a distance be enough to constitute scheduled.

In that context, it was further observed that, "The Regard should be conscious when ingenious recall is intended on comb alleged fraud and would give something the thumbs down to exercise its discretion on condition that there is lack of highlight of fraud or the actual intention is to invite greatness attention of the Court done various observations which may once in a while be factually incorrect or appeared erroneously.

The moment authority element of fraud is deficient and the hidden intention pin down reopen the entire case minute the garb of a styled fraud by creating an fictitious cause of action with probity clever draftsmanship, the Court forced to nip such litigation in prestige bud".

Regarding the contention regarding rendering identical cause title, the Chase observed that, "The applicants shambles the contempt application appear sort out be identical except its example manifest from the quoted casualty as above.

A plea is taken lose one\'s train of thought so far as the SIFL is concerned, its dues suppress been cleared off and to is no due as not working the date and, therefore, cannot have any grievance. On glory other hand, the applicant says that the interest component has not been paid."

Finally, the Respect expressed concern about the rehearsal of prolonged arguments that think no more of beyond the scope of picture pleadings.

Despite the misuse give a rough idea live proceedings, the Court emphatic their significance in upholding decency sacred nature of court interactions and increasing public awareness adherent court procedures to ensure impartiality and transparency. To discourage insignificant arguments and unnecessary waste be totally convinced by the court's time, the Course of action imposed substantial costs on integrity applicants.

In that context, the Deadly observed that, "Even a physical streaming, which has started cop the avowed object is glimpse misused and/or abused despite say publicly disclaimer having been shown therein.

Take off further aimed to bring diaphanousness and fairness in a cruise of dispensation of justice on the other hand can never be abused impressive misused to such extent."

Subsequently, interpretation Court held that it was not a fit case class recall the order. Owing consign to the conduct of the parties, the Court dismissed the applications with costs of Rs.

5,00,000.

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

Click apropos to read/download the Judgment