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

2012 Supreme(UK) 350

SWATANTER KUMAR, A.K.PATNAIK
AVISHEK GOENKA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Petitioners-in-Person:Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. R.K. Srivastava, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Mr. R.K. Rathore, Mr. S.S. Rawat, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Mr. Debesh Panda, Mr. Nitish Gupta, Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Mr. A.N. Haksar, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Mr. Vijay Sondhi, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Wasim Beg, Mr. Promod Nair, Mr. Mohit Bakshi, Mr. Dheeraj Nair, Mr. P.P. Hegde, Ms. Charu Ambwani, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Mr. A.P. & J. Chambers, Mr. Manu Nair, Mr. Anuj Berry, Mr. Tanuj Bhushan, for M/s. Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Mr. Gopal Jain, Ms. Nandini Gore, Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Mr. Abhishek Roy, Ms. Mahak Bhalla, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Mr. S. Nayyar, for M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Advocates with them for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J. — The applications for impleadment and intervention are allowed subject to just exceptions. All applications for placing documents on record are also allowed.

2. I.A No.5 of 2012 has been filed by the Dealers and Distributors of tinted films in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the dismissal of two interim applications, i.e., seeking permission to file application for impleadment and application for modification by the Registrar of this Court vide his Order dated 16th May, 2012.

3. The learned Registrar vide the impugned order noticed that application for impleadment was not maintainable inasmuch as the writ petition in which the application was filed has already been disposed of. In regard to the application for modification, according to the applicants, the petitioner suppressed various aspects of the matter and misled the court in passing the order and the same order was therefore, liable to be modified. Dealing with this contention, the learned Registrar, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 269] hel

































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top