UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSMT. DARSHNA DEVI
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 112
- Decided
- 22 January 1996
- Disposal
- IA disposed
Holding
The Court’s inherent power cannot be used for clarification or modification when a review remedy under the Supreme Court Rules has already been availed, and such applications must be dismissed as an abuse of process.
Summary
The Supreme Court had earlier disposed of an appeal and dismissed review petitions filed against its order. Subsequently, the parties filed applications seeking clarification and modification of that order, claiming the Court's inherent power. The Court examined whether such applications could be entertained when a review under the Supreme Court Rules had already been availed. It held that the inherent power is limited to correcting orders where no other remedy exists, and cannot be invoked again after a review has been sought and dismissed. Allowing the applications would constitute an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the applications for clarification and modification were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Can the Supreme Court invoke its inherent power to entertain applications for clarification or modification of its order after a review petition has been dismissed?
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
\
\
)
I
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
SMT. DARSHNA DEVI
JANUARY 22, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
Inherent power of Court :
Appeals disposed of-Review Petitions thereon dismissed-Application
filed for clarification and modification of the order-Since remedy by way of C
review under the Supreme Cowt Rules already availed inherent power cannot
be invoked again for fwther clarification or modification-Otherwise it will
be an abuse of the process of law without any responsibility.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. in Civil Appeal
Nos. 3450-3520 of 1995. D
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.91 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 428,161-73, 362-65, 412-18, 429/85, 431,
434, 443-444/84, 445/85, 446/84, 16-23, 141/85, 143- 45/85, 147, 148-160/85,
116/84, 146/85, 174-80, 181/85, 141of1985.
E
N.N. Goswami, Ashok K. Srivastava, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma
Suri, S.M. Sarin and P.N. Puri for the Appellants.
) H.N. Salve, N.D. Garg, CJ. Jain, Anil Gupta, Rajiv K. Rarg and
A.D.N. Rao for the Respondent.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This Court by order dated March 2, 1995 disposed of the appeal in
the light of the earlier law laid down this Court. Review petitions in these
appeals were filed and the same came to be dismissed on May 10, 1995.
Now these applications have been filed after changing the counsel, for G
clarification and modification of the order.
IA. No. in CA No. 3450/95
When this Court asked the counsel as to under what provisions of
law these applications are maintainable, the counsel found himself unable H
839
I
(
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.
A to bring to our notice any provision under which this application could be
entertained. The counsel state that the Court can do it under its inherent
power. Inherent power is meant only to correct orders when other remedy
is not available. Since the remedy by way of review under the rules of this
Court has been provided for and has been availed of, the inherent power
cannot be invoked again for further clarification or modification. It would
B be an obvious abuse of the process of law without any responsibility.
The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.
IA. Nos. in C4 Nos. 3451-3520/95
C If the decree is not drawn in accordance with the directions of this
Court, then remedy would be open to the petitioners to have that decree
corrected according to law. l.A.S. are accordingly disposed of.
G.N. I.AS. disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.