Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Sugam Mercantile Pvt. Ltd vs Sanjay Kumar Gupta & Ors on 19 January, 2018 cites

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

We have carefully considered the materials on record, as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is well settled law that the grounds of review contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code") are also applicable in case of a writ petition. Accordingly, the specific grounds of review provided under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are also applicable in this appeal. It is trite law that a party cannot maintain an application for review of a judgment and order to reargue the case. In the instant case, the applicant has sought for review the judgment and order dated November 24, 2017 on the ground that the same is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. Even in the Memorandum of Review, the applicant has admitted the unauthorised construction of the additional 5th and 6th floors of each of the three buildings. From the judgment and order dated November 24, 2017, as quoted above, it is evident that the Division Bench held that when neither the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Commissioner of HMC, nor the order dated January 20, 2016 passed by the same respondent referred to any provision of the HMC Act, 1992 or the Buildings Rules of HMC or any other legal provision to justify the retention of the admitted unauthorised construction of the 5th and 6th floors of the said buildings, the learned Single Judge erred in law to hold that the Commissioner of HMC was within its jurisdiction to regularise such unauthorised construction. While arriving at such conclusion, the Division Bench relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 and Dipak Babaria & Anr. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 502 and it is not the case of the applicant in the present application, that the said decisions of the Supreme Court have no application in this case. Therefore, we find that the first ground urged by the present applicant in this application for review of the judgment and order dated November 24, 2017 has no merit. The second ground urged by the applicant with regard to the approval of HMC the unauthorized construction of two additional floors, upon payment of retention fee by the applicant has been set aside by us by the judgment and order dated September 24,2017 and if the applicant is aggrieved by such decision it has to challenge the same before the superior forum and cannot maintain this review application. The third ground urged by the petitioner was not argued before us during the hearing of appeal. Even the said ground is not mentioned in the Memorandum of Review. In any event, such ground cannot be considered to construe an error apparent on the face of the record. When even in this review application, the applicant has admitted the construction of the 5th and 6th floors of the buildings in question to be unauthorised, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the applicant that it can make a fresh application for obtaining sanction of the said additional floors, that too as a ground of review of the judgment and order dated November 24, 2017. In any event, no such ground was urged by the present applicant during the course of hearing of the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1