Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr Lrs on 5 February, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr Lrs on 5 February, 2021

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah

                                                               NON­REPORTABLE
                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2021
                                                   IN
                                   Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020


          Neelam Manmohan Attavar                              …Applicant/Petitioner
                                         Versus
          Manmohan Attavar (D) through LRs.                    …Respondent(s)




                                              ORDER

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. The present application has been preferred by the

applicant/petitioner herein to recall the order passed by this

Court dated 03.09.2020 passed in Transferred Case (Criminal)

No. 1 of 2020.

2. We have heard the applicant­petitioner in person at length.

When we pointed out to the applicant­petitioner in person that as
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2021.02.05
15:05:30 IST
Reason:

earlier another application filed by her for the very same relief as

1
in the present application was dismissed by this Court, the

second application for the same relief could not be maintainable,

the applicant­petitioner in person submitted that one of us (Dr.

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse himself from

hearing the present application. We see no valid and good

ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might

not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for

recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by

seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the

applicant­petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y

Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present

miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is

rejected.

3. Now so far as the present application on merits is

concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier

one other application was filed by the applicant­petitioner in

person for the very relief, i.e., to recall order dated 03.09.2020

passed by this Court in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020

and the same came to be lodged by the Registrar and the

application challenging the order of the Registrar lodging the

2
application for recall of the order dated 03.09.2020 was

dismissed. That thereafter, once again, the applicant­petitioner

in person has preferred the present application for the very relief,

i.e., for recalling of order dated 03.09.2020 which shall not be

maintainable. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that

order dated 03.09.2020 was pronounced after hearing the

applicant. As observed hereinabove, earlier IA for recalling of

order dated 03.09.2020 was dismissed and at that time also the

applicant­petitioner in person was also heard.

4. In view of the above, the present application also deserves to

be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. It is observed that

the Registry shall not accept any further miscellaneous

application on the subject matter of order dated 03.09.2020 or

the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in IA No. 101770 of 2020 or

in the present order.

………………………………………J.

                                 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]


New Delhi;                        ………………………………………J.
February 05, 2021.                [M.R. Shah]




                                                                    3



Source link