9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pronouncement cannot be construed to be pronouncement in the realm of law. Clearly, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal only for the limited purpose of requesting for stay of the order pronounced for the interregnum period and to prefer an appeal by the aggrieved party. Accordingly, the Tribunal has listed the application and passed an order dated 29.10.2021 whereby, the request of the stay of order was acceded to and the order dated 01.03.2021, was kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks in order to enable the concerned parties to prefer appeal. The present writ petitions are nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioners to abuse the process of Court, relitigating the same subject matter - the petitions are disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and may not dismiss the appeal only on the ground of filing it with delay. It is submitted that the petitioners are seeking withdrawal of the captioned writ petitions with some observations. 2. Mr.Jaimin R. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.16755 of 2021 has argued on the same line as has been argued by Mr.Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.16707 of 2021. Mr.Jaimin R. Dave, learned advocate, while inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 26.10.2021, has submitted that the filing of the captioned writ petition is not barred inasmuch as this Court, while passing the order dated 26.10.2021, has categorically observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es except considering the request, if any, for stay of the order pronounced for the interregnum period to prefer appeal by the aggrieved party. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 01.03.2021, has not been disturbed. It is also submitted that from the order dated 26.10.2021, three things can be discern out namely (i) order is by invitation; (ii) for the limited purpose of requesting the stay of the order before the Tribunal and (iii) the order dated 01.03.2021, passed by the Tribunal, has not been disturbed. 3.1 It is further submitted that after the order dated 26.10.2021, passed by this Court, the matters were listed before the Tribunal on 29.10.2021 and the stay of the order dated 01.03.2021 was prayed for and the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months. It is also submitted that the petitioners very much knew where to approach but chose not to file any appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and have preferred the captioned writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.3 While comparing the petition memo of Special Civil Application No.5042 of 2021 with the petition memo of the captioned writ petition, it is submitted that except two or three grounds, all the grounds are verbatim same. Therefore, once the petitioners had already challenged the order dated 01.03.2021 and agreed for the order dated 26.10.2021, they could not have filed the captioned writ petitions. Such attempt on the part of the petitioners is mischievous and abuse of process of the Court, not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal on the limited ground for considering the request of the petitioner therein for stay of the judgment. The Tribunal was directed to consider the request of the parties on merits; however, the order passed by the Tribunal was not interfered with. It is not disputed that the petitioners, agreed for passing of the order dated 26.10.2021. Therefore, Mr.Singhi, learned advocate is right in contending that the order dated 26.10.2021 was passed on invitation. Further, in para 8.1, the directions has been issued to the Tribunal to notify the I.A. No.537 of 2020 and other allied matters only for the limited purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioners to make further prayers, since the pronouncement on 01.03.2021 was not withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners abusing the process of the Court. The Apex Court, in the case of Udhyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 has held and observed in para 16 that A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amount to abuse of the process of law. 7. Besides, the petitioners in para 4 of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.16707 of 2021 and in para 6 of the Special Civil Application No.16755 of 2021, have made declaration that they have not filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
