Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 19621
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, A, C, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
TRIMULA INDUSTRIES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COAL & ORS. – Respondent
LPA 250/2024
ASHWARYA SINHA
Judges' record is conclusive and cannot be contradicted by lawyers or litigants, except before the Judge himself.
Headnote:(A) Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 - Section 27(3) - Appeal against order of Single Judge - The appellant challenged the order disposing of the petition on grounds of alternative remedy being available under the Act - The learned counsel for the appellant consented to avail the remedy, which he later disputed - The court emphasized that the Judges’ record is conclusive and cannot be contradicted elsewhere - The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application for recall of the concession. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Legal Concessions - A concession made by counsel is binding unless recalled before the same Judge - The court reiterated that the record of the Judge is conclusive and cannot be challenged outside that forum. (Para 3)
% 28.03.2024
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14th March, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 3789/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the said petition on the ground that an alternative remedy is available to the appellant under Section 27(3) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 . In fact, the impugned order records that the learned senior counsel for the appellant/ petitioner consented that he would avail the said remedy.
2. However, today Mr.Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant states that he had never made any such concession.
3. The law is well-settled that the Judges’ record is conclusive. Neither a lawyer nor a litigant can claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else. (See: State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another , (1982) 2 SCC 463 ). Since in the present case no application for recall of the concession has been made before the learned Single Judge, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant cannot be entertained.
4. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the appellant states that he would like to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file an application seeking recall of the concession recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
5. With the aforesaid liberty the present appeal and the applications are dismissed as withdrawn. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the proposed application to be filed by the appellant.
