LEGAL ISSUE: Maintainability of a second recall application for the same relief.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs. Manmohan Attavar (D) through LRs.
Judgment Date: 05 February 2021
Date of the Judgment: 05 February 2021
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and M.R. Shah, J.
Can a litigant repeatedly seek the same relief from the Supreme Court after their initial application has been dismissed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question when an applicant filed a second application to recall a previous order. The court held that a second application seeking the same relief is not maintainable. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The applicant, Neelam Manmohan Attavar, filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall an order dated 03.09.2020, which was passed in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020. This was not the first time the applicant had sought this relief. Previously, an application for the same purpose was dismissed. Despite this, the applicant filed another application seeking the same relief.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 03.09.2020 | Supreme Court passed an order in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020. |
| [Date Not Specified] | Applicant filed an initial application to recall the order dated 03.09.2020. |
| [Date Not Specified] | The Registrar lodged the initial application to recall the order dated 03.09.2020. |
| 29.10.2020 | Supreme Court passed an order in IA No. 101770 of 2020 dismissing the application challenging the order of the Registrar lodging the application for recall. |
| 05.02.2021 | Supreme Court dismissed the present miscellaneous application seeking to recall the order dated 03.09.2020. |
Course of Proceedings
The applicant had previously filed an application to recall the order dated 03.09.2020. This application was lodged by the Registrar. Subsequently, an application challenging the Registrar’s order was dismissed by the Court. Despite this, the applicant filed the present application seeking the same relief. The Supreme Court noted that the order dated 03.09.2020 was passed after hearing the applicant, and that a previous application for recall had also been dismissed after hearing the applicant.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided by a court. While the judgment does not explicitly cite any specific statute or section, the underlying principle is that once a matter has been finally decided, it cannot be reopened by the same parties.
Arguments
The applicant, appearing in person, argued for the recall of the order dated 03.09.2020. When the Court pointed out that a previous application for the same relief had been dismissed, the applicant requested that Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud recuse himself from hearing the matter. The applicant did not provide any valid ground for recusal, and the Court rejected this request.
| Applicant’s Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Recall of order dated 03.09.2020 |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the implicit issue was:
- Whether a second application for recall of the same order is maintainable after a previous application for the same relief has been dismissed.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a second application for recall of the same order is maintainable after a previous application for the same relief has been dismissed. | Not Maintainable | The Court held that the second application for the same relief was not maintainable as a previous application for the same relief had already been dismissed. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions in this order. The decision was based on the principle that a second application for the same relief is not maintainable after a previous application for the same relief has been dismissed.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| None | Not Applicable |
Judgment
| Party’s Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Recall of order dated 03.09.2020. | Rejected as not maintainable because a previous application for the same relief had been dismissed. |
| Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud should recuse himself from hearing the matter. | Rejected as there was no valid ground for recusal. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
No authorities were cited in this judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily concerned with preventing the abuse of the legal process. The fact that the applicant had already sought the same relief and had been heard on the matter weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also emphasized that a litigant cannot be allowed to “browbeat” the Court by seeking a bench of their choice.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Preventing abuse of process | 50% |
| Previous dismissal of the same relief | 30% |
| Litigant cannot browbeat the court | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual history of the case, specifically that the applicant had previously sought the same relief and had been heard on the matter. The legal principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided, also influenced the Court’s decision.
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- A second application seeking the same relief after a previous application has been dismissed is not maintainable.
- Litigants cannot seek a bench of their choice without valid grounds for recusal.
- The Supreme Court will not entertain repeated applications on the same subject matter.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Registry not to accept any further miscellaneous applications on the subject matter of the order dated 03.09.2020, the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in IA No. 101770 of 2020, or the present order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second application for recall of the same order is not maintainable. This judgment reinforces the principle of res judicata and prevents the abuse of the legal process by repeated applications for the same relief.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by Neelam Manmohan Attavar, seeking to recall the order dated 03.09.2020. The Court held that a second application for the same relief is not maintainable, and further directed the Registry not to accept any further applications on the same subject matter. The Court also rejected the applicant’s request for recusal.
Category
- Criminal Law
- Miscellaneous Application
- Recall Application
- Civil Procedure
- Res Judicata
- Supreme Court of India
- Order of Supreme Court
FAQ
Q: Can I file a second application to recall an order if my first application was dismissed?
A: No, the Supreme Court has held that a second application seeking the same relief is not maintainable if a previous application for the same relief has already been dismissed.
Q: Can I request a judge to recuse themselves from hearing my case?
A: Yes, but only if you have valid and good grounds for recusal. A litigant cannot “browbeat” the Court by seeking a bench of their choice.
Q: What is the principle of res judicata?
A: Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided by a court. Once a matter has been finally decided, it cannot be reopened by the same parties.
Q: What does it mean when the court directs the registry not to accept further applications?
A: It means that the court will not entertain any further applications on the same subject matter. The registry is directed not to accept any further applications on the specific subject matter.