if petitioner can file reviewpt in person in supreme court and what is the procedure for the same
tej
(Querist) 16 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
res experts
my query is- if petitioner can file review petition in person against the dismissal of slp without assigning any reason in supreme court and what is the procedure for the same .please guide me with points and authority for the same.also i will like to know if there is specific format for the same. can the petitioner file the review petition by e filing in supreme court. if yes what is the procedure
tejstudent
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 16 November 2010
Dear Mr. Tej,
Earlier you had posted a thread in http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/guidence-when-slp-is-dismissed-without-assigning-reason-129606.asp
Can you post your current query in the same old thread so that experts will answer you. [Please avoid opening fresh threads for the same query or anu number of suplementary queries touching upon the main query.]
tej
(Querist) 16 November 2010
thanks expert R.Ramchandran,
i have posted in previous thread this query
tej
Ravindra Nath Tripathi
(Expert) 17 November 2010
visit supremecourtofindia.nic.in for detail. Yes you can file petition in person.
yogesh
(Expert) 18 November 2010
E-filing is introduced but on the website itself
Review petition needs to be same as per the SLP If you are in-person, then the filing counter located at the S.C will guide you in filling the same and if you are advocate then I think you have to contact 1-B counter where special pass is to be required
For review the same form of paper book (1+3) sets required along with fees for proof of service(rs 12/-) which I think may be decided on circulation
All the best
tej
(Querist) 22 November 2010
Res. Experts
pls. advise me how can following points can be added in synopsis of review?
any suggestions or alteration most welcomed.also let me know can i add issues for ready reference which are least analogous in review?as listed below
It is respectfully submitted that the prayer No. 2 of the complaint 1st part is the prayer asking to direct the opponents to remedy the wrongs which are enumerated in para 8 and 9 of the complaint supported by the findings of Hon. Court commissioner report who was appointed by the forum against which there is not single discussion nor the same is dealt in the judgement of APDF
It is respect fully submitted that The stamp duty is paid directly to Promoter by cheque in his name and he has cheated the petitioners by providing less built up area even then the claim towards the same is rejected by APDF
It is further submitted that though the Petitioner No.2(not the petitioners) was a labour contractor for the scheme he handed over his entrusted work to the satisfaction of the Respondent and his architect. The respondent and his architect have issued satisfaction certificate to the labour contractor after expirity of defect liability period (which is of 6 months) that is on the record of APDF,there is not single evidence on record by which it can be arrived at to blame labour contractor for the defects and deficiencies or can be said to be the part of his labour contract.
There are issues which are at least analogous which are the basis of this review petition
1 why the promoter and builder is not guilty under unfair trade practice even after proving the fact against him regarding less built up area than agreed is provided by him.
2. why there are no orders against opponents in respect of removing the defects and deficiencies as enumerated in para 8 and 9 even when those are proved by more than sufficient evidence on record .
3.whether prayer of petitioner being the prayer no.2 of the complaint is not discussed nor dealt by any forum justified?
4.whether not granting the interest even after proving the deficiency justified?
5.whether not allowing the cost by forum justified?
4.whether the petitioners loses their right of consumer on ground that one of the petitioner was labour contractor for the scheme justified?
5.whether the basis held by apdf that single flat owner cannot raise complaint against defects and deficiencies in common area justified?
6.whether the basis held by state forum that labour contractor is the promoter hence he cannot be heard justified?
7 Whether the learned members of forums appear to have shifted their focus from the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint to what relief could be given to the Respondents there in?
8. Whether the judgement of APDF which do not deals all the prayers in the complaint is justified?
9.whether the dismissal of appeal and revision petition at admission stage is justified?
10.whether observation of the APDF and all appellant forums that the petitioners were the contractor of the scheme justified when petitioner no. 1 is not even remotely concern with construction activity?
11.whether ignoring the fact which is indicative of cheating almost all flat holders of the condominium by providing less built-up area than the agreement and thousands of flat owners in the scheme floated by the opponent promoter builder in that material time in the same way justified?
12.whether the basis held by the APDF that single flat owner is not entitled for compensation even if the promoter and builder fails to remove defects and deficiencies justified?
13.whether excess stamp duty paid to promoter due to cheating by promoter in showing more built up area is not recoverable from him justified?
Recording of reasons also operates as valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or even administrative power. when reasoned order is given, it would reassure the parties that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
The petitioner rely on judgement of Hon. Supreme court dated Sept. 8,2010,in the case of Ms Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd&Anr v/s Sh Masoos Ahmed khan & Ors.
Justice hurried and buried causes more problems since the appeals result in causing longer delays and putting parties to needless expenditure. Order to satisfactorily reach on judicial determination of disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise, it has to be supported by the most cogent reasons, mere order deciding the dispute without any reasoning is no judgment at all reasoning is the soul of judicial decision making and is important for sustaining the litigants ‘faith in justice delivery system.
It is respectfully submitted that the prayer No. 2 of the complaint 1st part is the prayer asking to direct the opponents to remedy the wrongs which are enumerated in para 8 and 9 of the complaint supported by the findings of Hon. Court commissioner report who was appointed by the forum against which there is not single discussion nor the same is dealt in the judgement of APDF.the defects enumerated in para 8 and 9 are not even discussed nor the finding of towards the same is recorded by the forum even after more than sufficient evidence on record to prove those defects and deficiencies supported by the findings of Hon. Court commissioner report who was appointed by the forum .
It is respect fully submitted that The stamp duty is paid directly to Promoter by cheque in his name and he has cheated the petitioners by providing less built up area even then the claim towards the same is rejected by APDF
It is respect fully submitted that The defects and deficiencies are proved and found existing are beyond the scope of any labour contract even then the apdf denied the same other prayers on the ground that the Petitioners themselves were the contractor and therefore they are not entitled for any compensation ,this is very error on the face of record can be observed that petioner no. 1 is and was neigther the labour contractor nor he is or was remotely connected with construction activity.
It is respect fully submitted that The defects and deficiencies are proved and found existing are of serious nature and for which opponents are only guilty even then APDF has ignored to discuss these defects and deficiencies.
It is respect fully submitted that Petitioners are legal consumers and as they are having rights awarded to them by way the agreement and also have % right in common area hence entitled for agitating rights in respect of all defects and deficiencies related to their right.
It is further submitted that though the Petitioner No.2(not the petitioners) was a labour contractor for the scheme he handed over his entrusted work to the satisfaction of the respondent and his architect. The respondent and his architect have issued satisfaction certificate to the labour contractor after expirity of defect liability period (which is of 6 months) that is on the record of APDF,there is not single evidence on record by which it can be arrived at to blame labour contractor for the defects and deficiencies or can be said to be the part of his labour contract.
waiting for urgent reply from all experts.
