(BY SMT. SNEH MISHRA - ADVOCATE) v. (SHRI AMALPUSHP SHROTI - ADVOCATE
Case at a glance
- Bench
- VIVEK AGARWAL
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the review petitions are hereby dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 47 r. 1
Judgment
(BY SMT. SNEH MISHRA - ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER AND
OFFICER, ASSESSMENT SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH POORVA KSHETA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) APPELLATE AUTHORITY OCCUPTION ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E.S.) AND ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ENERGY DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISIONAL STREET NO.8 RAJENDRA NAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) OF M.P. STATE (SHRI AMALPUSHP SHROTI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1) .....RESPONDENTS REVIEW PETITION No. 1314 of 2023 BETWEEN:- M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD THROUGH SUSHEEL TIWARI EXECUTIVE LEGAL AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ( BIRLA CORPORATION UNIT) SATNA CEMENT WORKS DISTRICT SATNA MP (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SMT. SNEH MISHRA - ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 05-01-2024 10:44:32 2 AND
Operative part
2. OFFICER SUPERINTENDING ASSESSMENT ENGINEER MADHYA POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) PRADESH AUTHORITY, OCCUPATION APPELLATE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ES) AND ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR STATE OF MP ENERGY DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISIONAL STREET NO 8 RAJENDRA NAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) (SHRI AMALPUSHP SHROTI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1) .....RESPONDENTS These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER These review petitions have been filed being aggrieved of order dated 6th November, 2023 passed in W.P. Nos. 9098/2009 and 9099/2009 only on the ground that due to absence of counsel for the review petitioner, certain facts could not be brought on record. It is submitted that there was miscommunication between the Senior Counsel Shri M.L. Jaiswal and the company executive. Therefore, parties were not represented before the court but looking to the fact that none of these grounds are the grounds to show error apparent on the face of the record to make out a case for review, the Review Petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. It will not be inappropriate to observe that M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. has invoked the review jurisdiction without understanding the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and has wasted precious time of the court. This submission that Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel could not be instructed is also inappropriate, in as much as, there is no permanent Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 05-01-2024 10:44:32 engagement of the senior counsel and he is to be instructed on face to face and 3 date to date basis. Accordingly, the review petitions are hereby dismissed. (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 05-01-2024 10:44:32
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the review petitions are hereby dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 47 r. 1.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.