w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Maritime Science and Engineering, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Tamilarasu Sambandam & Others v/s The Director General of Shipping, Training Branch, The Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai & Others

    Review Application Nos. 8 & 96 of 2021 & W.A. No. 834 of 2021
    Decided On, 27 August 2021
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    For the Appearing Parties: P. Wilson, Senior Advocate for M/s. Wilson Associates, G. Sankaran for M/s. JP Dhanyasree, Advocates, R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Asst. Solicitor-General.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the judgment dated 29.10.2020 passed in W.A.No.962 of 2020.

Writ Appeal No.834 of 2021 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 06.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.6988 of 2020.)

Common Order

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ.

1. Two review applications have been filed and there is an appeal from the original order that was affirmed by the order under review.

2. According to the review petitioners, the order dated October 29, 2020 failed to notice documents which were on record and the same amounts to an error apparent on the face of the order. The review petitioners submit that as a consequence of the relevant material not being alluded to in the order under review, there has been serious miscarriage of justice.

3. There is a distinction between an error apparent on the face of an order and an error of assessment. No court or judge can say that the assessment made was perfectly justified or there cannot be another point of view. However, an order of assessment is conclusive as far as that level is concerned and the assessment may be challenged before a superior forum by way of an appeal or revision or the like. The power exercised in considering an appeal is completely different from the power exercised in reviewing an order.

4. The grounds of review in the present case touch upon the very propriety of the assessment involved as the review petitioners suggest that relevant considerations that ought to have been taken into account may not have been taken into account while making the order. While that may be a good ground in the appeal, it may not necessarily be a ground that would excite the court at the same level to re-visit the order and permit the entire matter to be re-agitated.

5. It is neither review petitioner’s case that any event subsequent to the making of the order or any material discovered subsequent to the making of the order requires the matter to be reconsidered. Both the review petitioners insist that on the basis of the material that was available before the court at the time that the order was pronounced, it would be evident that the order of the single Bench could not have been sustained. Such submission amounts to an assertion that the adjudication may have been gone awry or the assessment conducted may have been faulty. While these may constitute grounds for carrying the order to a higher forum by way of an appeal or otherwise, they are not grounds for reopening the matter at this level.

6. As far as the appeal is concerned, once the court has dealt with the grounds urged by a similarly placed appellant, a further appeal may not be entertained. While it is possible that when one side’s appeal is dismissed, the opponent’s appeal may still be entertained and an order made thereon, when there are several similarly placed parties in a matter and one of such person’s appeal is dealt with in a particular manner, the appellate order in such a s

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ituation will govern all other parties similarly situated and fresh appeals cannot be pursued by the individual parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid, Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021 and W.A.No.834 of 2021 are dismissed. C.M.P.Nos.4758, 974, 11168, 4759 and 11173 of 2021 are closed. There will be no order as to costs.