9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reserving any liberty to file afresh, the said remedy will stand exhausted. The present appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. - VAT APPEAL 4/2023, CM APPL. 10523/2023 & CM APPL. 10524/2023,VAT APPEAL 5/2023, CM APPL. 10795/2023 & CM APPL. 10796/2023 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2023 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Mrs. Sonia Sharma, Mr. A. K. Babbar and Mr. Akshay Bhatia, Advocates. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC along with Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate. ORDER 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 01.10.2021 in Appeal No. 162-165/ATVAT/2019 and Appeal No. 166-169/ATVAT/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a special leave petition against an order passed by the High Court would be maintainable in a case where on a prior occasion, the special leave petition had been dismissed, held that the appeal would not be maintainable. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: 8. The question that we have to decide is whether the appeal will lie against the order dated 29-1-2000 of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999 when an earlier Special Leave Petition against the said order dated 29-1-2000 of the High Court was filed by the appellant but was withdrawn with the permission of this Court to pursue his remedy by way of review against the said order dated 29-1-2000 of the High Court. As the appellant has withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner for correction. We express no opinion in that behalf . No liberty was reserved to file a fresh appeal or seek review of the order dated 13-3-1997 on merits. The order dated 13-3-1997 having attained finality, his efforts to reagitate the issue again and again is an exercise in futility. We are therefore of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Moreover, on the High Court rejecting the application for review of the Appellant, the order rejecting the application for review is not appealable by virtue of the principle in Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure. In Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput; Suseel Finance and Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors. and M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by him on the land in Survey No. 250/12 in Village Taleigao. 7. The above principle was also reiterated by the Supreme Court in a later decision: Sandhya Educational Society Ors. vs. Union of India Ors. : Civil Appeal No. 2927/2013 decided on 02.04.2020. 8. Mr. Mahna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the decision in the case of Vinod Kapoor (supra) was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the facts in the present case are of material difference since the appellant had withdrawn the earlier appeal with the liberty to file a review petition. He submits that no such liberty had been sought or granted by the appellant in the case of Vinod Kapoor (supra). 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
