Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
P.K. Umaiba – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi – Respondent
Rev. App. Nos. 306, 307, 309 of 2014, W.A. Nos. 320, 321, 322 of 2014
Decided On : 13-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : A. Thiagarajan, S. Aravind Raj
For the Respondent: N. Ramesh
Review applications must demonstrate an error apparent on the record; changing counsel without consent is disapproved.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 - Review Applications filed to review common judgment dated 19.08.2024 - Grounds for review not established as no error apparent on record - Practice of changing counsel without consent disapproved - Review applications dismissed. (Paras 1, 8, 12)
(B) Review Applications - Scope and principles - Review not to be an attempt to reargue merits - Mere repetition of arguments insufficient for review - Finality of judgments emphasized. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Review Applications were filed to challenge the common judgment regarding supplementary notices under SAFEMA, with arguments on the propriety of the notices and representation by new counsel without prior consent.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error apparent on the record and disapproved the practice of changing counsel for review applications without prior knowledge of the original counsel.
Issues: The main issues included the propriety of supplementary notices and the legitimacy of new counsel filing review applications without prior consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that review applications must demonstrate an error apparent on the record and that changing counsel without consent undermines the integrity of the legal process.
Result: Review Applications dismissed.
ORDER :
Prayer in Rev. App. No. 306/2024: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.A. No. 322 of 2014 by this Court.
Prayer in Rev. App. No. 307/2024: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.A. No. 320 of 2014 by this Court.
Prayer in Rev. App. No. 309/2024: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.A. No. 321 of 2014 by this Court.
1. Review Applications have been instituted to review the common judgment of this Court dated 19.08.2024 passed in W.A. Nos. 320 to 322 of 2014.
2. Dr. A. Thiagarajan, the learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Aravind Raj, learned counsel on record for the applicants made a submission that the reasons recorded for issuing supplementary notices under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 SAFEMA is improper.
3. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that since the initial notice issued under Section 6(1) was dropped, the subsequent supplementary notice cannot be sustained.
4. In respect of the ground raised in the present review applications, Mr. N. Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the said point was previously considered by this Court during the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. Kumar during the hearing of the writ appeal. The findings in this regard are recorded in paragraph 31(c) of the judgment, which reads as follows:
“31...........
(a).............
(b).............
(c) In the 2nd notice issued to Mr. K.P. Abdul Majeed and to Smt. Umaiba, it was mentioned on the head as “supplementary notice.” No such mention is there in the notice issued to Smt. Rukhiya. This was done in order to maintain the continuity of the file in the competent authority's office and to remind that there is prior notice in respect of two persons.”
5. This Court considered these issues on merits elaborately after hearing the parties. During the course of hearing, when this Court posed a question to Dr. A. Thiagarajan, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S. Aravind Raj, learned counsel on record, whether they have obtained a “no objection” from the learned counsel, who appeared in the writ appeal. Their response was “negative.”
6. The learned counsels appeared in the writ appeals admittedly not filed the present review applications. Instead, the review applications are filed by engaging new counsels.
7. Question arises, whether different counsel can be permitted to file review applications when they have no knowledge about the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel in the writ appeals.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9 SCC 736 held as follows:
“1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as “application for clarification” on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court sp
