2019 (2) TMI 1545 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Review application - case of the petitioners is that on 16.04.2018 when the matter came up for consideration before this Court, it appears that the same was sought to be withdrawn but the fact is that the petitioners company had no knowledge about listing of the appeal on 16.04.2018 - precedent order by the Division Bench - Held that - We are afraid any leniency in accepting the plea of the petitioner company would not only amount to diluting the view of the earlier Division Bench of this Court, it is also likely to set a bad precedent as any litigant may approach this Court through a new set of lawyer for review of the order making a vague statements that he had not instructed to his Advocate(s) to withdraw the appeal. The sanctity of Court s order is to be preserved. We are not satisfied with the averments made in the review application and those are the very basis of seeking condonation of delay - review application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review application filed by new set of lawyers, Grounds for review, Error apparent on the face of the record, Delay in filing review application, Precedent set by earlier Division Bench.

Analysis:
1. Review Application by New Lawyers: The review applications were filed by a new set of lawyers on the grounds that the petitioner company was unaware of the appeal being listed on 16.04.2018, leading to its dismissal without proper instructions. However, the Court noted that the new lawyers did not follow the guidelines set by an earlier Division Bench judgment deprecating the practice of seeking reviews by changing lawyers, especially on grounds known to the previous lawyers. The Court emphasized the importance of verifying facts with the earlier lawyer before filing a review.

2. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The petitioners claimed an error in the presence of Mr. Ajay Rastogi in the order dated 16.04.2018. However, the Court found that the order was passed in the presence of Mr. S.K. Sharan, Mr. Ajay Rastogi, and Ms. Kalpana Rohtagi, with no indication that Mr. Ajay Rastogi was a Government Counsel at that time. The petitioners failed to establish that the mentioned advocates confirmed not appearing on the specified date.

3. Delay in Filing Review Application: The review applications were also dismissed due to a delay of 140 days in filing them. The Court found the grounds for seeking condonation of delay unsatisfactory, further weakening the case for review.

4. Precedent Set by Earlier Division Bench: The Court emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of court orders and avoid setting a bad precedent where litigants could approach the court through new lawyers to seek reviews based on vague statements regarding instructions to advocates. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal process and maintaining the credibility of court decisions.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review applications due to the failure of the new lawyers to adhere to established guidelines, the lack of evidence supporting the claimed error, the significant delay in filing the applications, and the importance of upholding the sanctity of court orders and legal processes.