SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 1483

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Sharma, Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Union of India and another - Petitioners
Versus
Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries Limited and another - Respondents
SLP (C) No. 355 of 2011
Decided On : 29-07-2011

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rachana Joshi Issar, Aruna Gupta and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sujay N. Kantawala and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.

The importance of consent and instructions in legal proceedings, and the option to file a review petition if necessary.

Headnote:

Consent - Review Petition - The court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court within three weeks, without objection to the period of limitation, if no consent was given by the counsel and if there were no instructions by the client to the counsel.

Fact of the Case:

The High Court recorded a consensus between the counsel for the parties, which the petitioners disputed, leading the court to suggest filing a review petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court within three weeks.

Issues: Disputed consensus between counsel, need for review petition.

Ratio Decidendi: If no consent was given by the counsel and if there were no instructions by the client to the counsel, the petitioners should file a review petition.

Final Decision: The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court within three weeks.

ORDER :

M.K. Sharma, Anil R. Dave, JJ.

Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Our attention has been drawn to the contents of paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and order : 2010 (253) E.L.T. 387 (Bom.)] wherein the High Court has recorded that a consensus was there between the counsel appearing for the parties at the time of hearing that there are two contradictory orders in respect of the same Petitioner which could not be allowed to hold the field. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has stated before us that there could not and should not have been such a consensus nor was there any instruction for giving such a consent by the Petitioners to the concerned counsel.

3. We have noted the said statement. In our considered opinion, in that event, it may be a matter of review which the Petitioners should resort to in order to get proper and appropriate relief. If, in fact, no such consent was given by the counsel and if there was no such instructions by the client to the counsel, in that event, an appropriate application should be filed by the Petitioners before the High Court seeking for a review of the aforesaid contents in paragraph 5.

4. We permit the Petitioners to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file a review petition before the High Court within a period of three weeks. If the same is filed accordingly, the High Court will entertain such petition without raising any objection with regard to the period of limitation and shall hear the petition on merits, as the matter was pending in this Court for all these periods.

5. The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the aforesaid order, giving aforesaid liberty to the Petitioners.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top