Back
1994 Supreme(SC) 1406
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.
Zila Parishad, Ferozepur - Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1115 of 1976
Decided On : 02-09-1994
Courts may reject adjournment applications without supporting evidence and have the authority to review and correct previous orders if there are obvious errors in calculation.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Calculation of Amount Due - The court reviewed the previous order and directed the petitioner to pay a reduced amount to the respondent with interest, as the quantification of the amount suffered from an obvious error of calculation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent did not appear at the hearing, and two telegrams seeking adjournment and personal hearing were received after the hearing was over. The court rejected the application for adjournment and reviewed the previous order to correct the calculation of the amount due to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the quantification of the amount directed to be paid to the respondent suffered from an obvious error of calculation and therefore reviewed the previous order, directing the petitioner to pay a reduced amount with interest.
Issues: Non-appearance of the respondent, rejection of adjournment application, review of the previous order, and correction of the calculation of the amount due to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the adjournment application due to lack of supporting evidence for the alleged illness and reviewed the previous order to correct the calculation of the amount due to the respondent.
Final Decision: The review petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to pay a reduced amount to the respondent with interest.
ORDER :
Verma, Sawant, Ramaswamy, Jeevan Reddy, JJ.
Neither the respondent nor any one on his behalf appeared at the time of the hearing of this matter on the 5th August, 1994. However, two telegrams were received after the hearing was over. One telegram seeking adjournment on account of illness of the respondent and praying for fixing the hearing in November 1994, was received at 4.30 p.m. on 5th August, 1994 and another requesting personal hearing was received on 17th August, 1994. The matter was fixed before the Constitution Bench and pertained to the correct calculation of the amount due to the respondent. The ground for the adjournment is not supported by any affidavit or medical certificate in support of the alleged illness. We, therefore, reject the application for the adjournment.
2. After going through the record and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-Parishad, we agree that the quantification of the amount directed to be paid to the respondent-employee under the Court's order dated 4th September, 1990 suffers from an obvious error of calculation. We, therefore, review the said order and direct that the petitioner-Parishad will pay to the respondent Rs. 3,72,289.08 only with interest @ 6% per annum thereon instead of Rs. 4,83,061.90 with interest @ 6% per annum as directed by the said order. The interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 3,72,289.08 will be paid from 30th September, 1984 till the date of payment as directed in the said order. The review petition is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
