UNION OF INDIA versus HARNAM SINGH
Parties
- UNION OF INDIA (PETITIONER)
- HARNAM SINGH (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (2)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
Cites (0 resolved of 3 detected)
3 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
UNION OF INDIA v. HARNAM SINGH
JANUARY 13, 1994
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI AND AS. ANAND, J.] :
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : Sections 5(1)(2) and (6). Tribunal--Power of Single Member to dispose of cases-Observations in judg-ment under review-Deletion of.
Dismissing the Review Petition Filed against the decision in Union of India v. Hamam Singh, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 162, this Court
HELD : The observation in the judgment under review to the effect that "ordinarily keeping in view the Judgment of this Court in Amulya [Chandra Kalita's ][case ...... is under consideration ...... " is deleted as ][ii ][is ]susceptible or aQ interpretation denuding the efficacy or the judgment in Dr. Mahabal Ram's case. To which reference was not made at the hearing or the main appeal. (119-B, DJ
Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 181 and Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Ors., (1991) 2 L.L.J. 112, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C) No. 1384 of 1993.
Civil Appeal No. 502 of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.92 of the Central Ad-ministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No. 1252 of 1992.
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and J.D. Jain for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
1. We have heard Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel for [the respondent ][who ][has preferred this review petition. On consideration ]118
of the matter, we find that the grounds raised in support of the review, do not justify our interference with the earlier order 9th February, 1993.
2. However, there is one other aspect which might bear considera-tion. In the course of the order, it was observed :
"Ordinarily, keeping in view the judgment of this Cpurt in Amulya Chandra Kalita's case [supra], we should have remanded the case to the Tr_ibunal for fresh ~posal because of the fact that the order of the Tribunal was rendered by only one member or to have awaited the decision of some cases pending in this Court in which the validity of the order passed by single member of the tribunal is under consideration ...... "
3. This statement might be susceptible of an interpretation that it denudes the efficacy of the pronouncement of this Court in 1991 (2) LLJ 112 : Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others to which reference was not made at the hearing of the main appeal. It is, therefore, appropriate that the observations, exce:q>ted above, are deleted from the order. They are, accordingly, deleted, leist there be scope for any such misunderstanding.
Review petition dismissed.