Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Karnataka State Electronics ... vs The Official Liquidator Of M/S Anco ... on 11 January, 2021
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Sanjiv Khanna
SLP(C) D.26693/2020
1
ITEM NO.17 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.26693/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-06-2005
in OSA No.31/2004 04-03-2020 in RP No.132/2017 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT Petitioner(s)
CORPORATION LTD.
VERSUS
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S ANCO Respondent(s)
COMMUNICATION LTD.
(With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.130672/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING and IA No.130673/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.130674/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 11-01-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge on 21 June 2005. Nearly 12 years thereafter, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition being, Signature Not Verified SLP(C) No 704 of 2017 against the order dated 21 June 2005. On 16 January Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.01.11 17:00:06 IST 2017, this Court passed the following order:-
Reason: SLP(C) D.26693/2020 2“The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that 99% of the value of the land under lease has not been paid and the final decision of the High Court is incorrect and seeks permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions with liberty to file Review Petition before the High Court on aforesaid aspect.
Permission granted.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as aforementioned.”
2 The petitioner filed a review petition before the High Court together with an application for condoning a delay of 4235 days. The High Court has declined to condone the delay and has also held that the decision of this Court in Phatu Rochiram Mulchandani vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and Others (2015) 5 SCC 244, is not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the review petition or for entertaining the review. The reasons which have been expressed by the High Court in declining to condone the delay are unexceptionable. The petitioner has no satisfactory explanation why the judgment of the High Court dated 21 June 2005, was not challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution for nearly 12 years. Significantly, the order of this Court dated 16 January 2017, did not condone the delay of the petitioner in either moving the Special Leave Petition or in filing the review petition. Recording the submission of counsel for the petitioner, the Special leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn while permitting the petitioner to file a review petition.
3 In these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
4 Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master