Read Order: Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, October 19, 2021: The Supreme Court has ruled that filing of applications styled as “miscellaneous applications” or “applications for clarification/modification” in the guise of a review, cannot be countenanced. 

A Division Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud & Justice B.V. Nagarathna therefore observed that filing of a miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law, as one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly. 

Going by the background of the case, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed the demolition of Towers 16 and 17 by the third respondent, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, in Emerald Court constructed by the applicant and situated on Plot No 4, Sector 93A, NOIDA. 

Later, a miscellaneous application was filed by Supertech Limited seeking modification of the judgment and order dated August 31, 2021 reported in Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.  

The reliefs which were sought in the Miscellaneous Application were: 

(a) Modification of judgment dated August 31, 2021 to the extent that the Applicant may demolish a part of tower T-17; 

(b) Passing an order of status quo in respect of Towers 16 & 17 in Emerald Court, Plot No. 4, Sector 93A, NOIDA till final orders are passed in the present application. 

After considering the arguments, the Top Court found that what the applicant sought in the present application was that the direction for the demolition of Tower 16 and Tower 17 should be substituted by the retention of Tower 16 in its entirety and slicing of a portion of Tower 17. 

Clearly, the grant of such a relief is in the nature of a review of the judgment of this Court, added the Division Bench of the Top Court. 

The Bench said that the attempt in the present miscellaneous application is clearly to seek a substantive modification of the judgment of this Court, which is not permissible. 

While, the senior counsel,  Mukul Rohatgi, relied upon the provisions of Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, what is contemplated therein is a saving of the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court, noted the Bench.

The Apex Court further observed that Order LV Rule 6 cannot be inverted to bypass the provisions for review in Order XLVII in the Supreme Court Rules,2013

Therefore, stating that Miscellaneous application was an abuse of the process, the Apex Court dismissed the same.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment