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

2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble The CHIEF JUSTICE
Kamarajar Institute – Appellant
Versus
Director – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.08.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021 and W.A.No.834 of 2021 Review Application No.8 of 2021:

Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Maritime Science and Engineering, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer Tamilarasu Sambandam, 1069, Thirupaninatham, Keerapalayam Post, Chidambaram – 608 602, Cuddalore District. .. Applicant Vs

1.The Director General of Shipping, Training Branch, The Directorate General of Shipping, 9th Floor Beta Building, I-Thinking Techno Campus, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai-400 042.

2.The Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust, No.303, Mayuresh Chambers, Plot No.60, Sector-11, Opp. Raheja Arcade, CBD Belapur (W), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Pin Code – 400 614. .. Respondents Review Application No.96 of 2021:

1.Mugilan 2.Sanjeev

3.Vignesh Arumugam .. Applicants Vs

1.The Director General of Shipping, Training Branch, The Directorate General of Shipping, 9th Floor Beta Building, I-Thinking Techno Campus, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai-400 042.

2.The Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust, No.303, Mayuresh Chambers, Plot No.60, Sector-11, Opp. Raheja Arcade, CBD Belapur (W), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Pin Code – 400 614.

3.Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Maritime Science and Engineering, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer Tamilarasu Sambandam, 1069, Thirupaninatham, Keerapalayam Post, Chidambaram – 608 602, Cuddalore District. .. Respondents W.A.No.834 of 2021:

1.Mugilan 2.Sanjeev

3.Vignesh Arumugam .. Appellants Vs

1.The Director General of Shipping, Training Branch, The Directorate General of Shipping, 9th Floor, Beta Building, I-Thinking Techno Campus, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai-400 042.

2.The Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust, No.303, Mayuresh Chambers, Plot No.60, Sector-11, Opp. Raheja Arcade, CBD Belapur (W), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Pin Code – 400 614.

3.Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Maritime Science and Engineering, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer Tamilarasu Sambandam, 1069, Thirupaninatham, Keerapalayam Post, Chidambaram – 608 602, Cuddalore District. .. Respondents Prayer: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the judgment dated

29.10.2020 passed in W.A.No.962 of 2020.

Writ Appeal No.834 of 2021 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 06.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.6988 of

2020.

For the Petitioner in : Mr.G.Sankaran Rev.Aplw.No.8/2021 for Mr.Richardson Wilson and Respondent No.3 in Rev.Aplw.No.96/2021 and W.A.No.834/2021 For the Petitioners in : Mr.P.Wilson Rev.Aplw.No.96/2021 Senior Advocate and the Appellants for M/s.JP Dhanyasree in W.A.No.834/2021 For the First : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Respondent in Review Asst. Solicitor-General Applications and in Writ Appeal COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Two review applications have been filed and there is an appeal from the original order that was affirmed by the order under review.

2. According to the review petitioners, the order dated October

29, 2020 failed to notice documents which were on record and the same amounts to an error apparent on the face of the order. The review petitioners submit that as a consequence of the relevant material not being alluded to in the order under review, there has been serious miscarriage of justice.

3. There is a distinction between an error apparent on the face of an order and an error of assessment. No court or judge can say that the assessment made was perfectly justified or there cannot be another point of view. However, an order of assessment is conclusive as far as that level is concerned and the assessment may be challenged before a superior forum by way of an appeal or revision or the like. The power exercised in considering an appeal is completely different from the power exercised in reviewing an orde

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top