LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus YASHWANT SINGH NEGI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 2 S.C.R. 550 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. YASHWANT SINGH NEGI (Special Leave Petition (Civil} No. 4616 of 2010) APRIL 08, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: c Art. 136 - SLP challenging the order passed by High Court in review petition and not the main judgment - Held: Not maintainable - Once the High Court has refused to entertain the review petition and the same was dismissed confirming the main order, there is no question of any merger and the 0 aggrieved person has to challenge the main order and not the order dismissing the review petition because on the dismissal of the review petition the principle of merger does not apply - Principle of merger. In the instant petition for special leave to appeal E against the order passed by the High Court in a review petition, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that since the main judgment rendered by the High Court was not challenged, the SLP was not maintainable. F Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: Once the High Court has refused to entertain the review petition and the same was dismissed confirming the main order, there is no question of any merger and the aggrieved person has to challenge the G main order and not the order dismissing the review petition because on the dismissal of the review petition the principle of merger does not apply. Therefore, the instant SLP is not maintainable, since the main order was H 550 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. YASHWANT 551 SINGH NEGI not challenged but the order passed in the review petition A alone was challenged. [para 3-4) [553-A-B; 554-G-H] Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Dugal Kumar 2008 (11) SCR 369 = (2008) 14 SCC 295 - held inapplicable. Manohar S/o Shankar Nale and Others v. Jaipalsing B S/o Shiv/a/sing Rajput and Others 2007 (12) SCR 364 = (2008) 1 SCC 520 DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2012 (5) SCR 583 = (2012) 6 SCC 782 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2008 (11) SCR 369 2007 (12) SCR 364 2012 (5) SCR 583 held inapplicable para 2 relied on relied on Para 3 Para 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4616 of 2010 c D From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Review Petition No. 79 of E 2009. Sanjiv Sen, Anirudh Gupta, P. Parmeswaran for the Petitioner. Nidesh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S. Janani for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This special leave petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Review Petition No.79 of 2009 in G LPA No.1233 of 2006. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the special leave petition is not maintainable since the main judgment rendered by the High Court on 5.11.2008 in LPA No.1233 of 2006 was not challenged. H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A 2. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on the judgment of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 sec 295 and submitted that the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case and the SLP is perfectly maintainable, B even though the petitioner had not challenged the original order passed by the High Court on 5.11.2008. Learned counsel submitted that on dismissal of the review petition, the earlier order stood merged, in the order passed in the review petition, consequently, the SLP is perfectly maintainable. Considerable c reliance was placed on paragraphs 21 and 22 of the above D E F G H Judgment, which read as under: "21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as the technical objection raised by the Company with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta is· concerned, in our opinion, it would not be appropriate to set aside the order passed in favour of the writ petitioner on that ground. It is clear from the record that the writ petition came up for admission hearing on 6-9-1999 and the counsel for the appellant Company was present. Not only that he did not raise any objection as to territorial jurisdiction of the court, he expressly made a statement before the court to pass "usual order''. Accordingly,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.