Mahendra and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anr.

Mahendra and ors. vs State of Uttaranchal and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 09, 2007

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/676370

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/676370
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Arijit Pasayat and; S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 09, 2007
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2893 of 2006)
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - Practice and Procedure - Multiple Petitions - Criminal miscellaneous applications filed - Dismissed by High Court dismissed on ground that two applications were filed in respect of the same impugned order and appellants while filing second application concealed the fact that first application pending - Hence...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahendra and ors.

Advocate Abhisth Kumar and; K.N. Tripathy, Advs

Respondent

State of Uttaranchal and anr.

Advocate A.S. Rawat, A.A.G. and ; J.K. Bhatia, Advs.

Legal References

Reported In: 2007(2)SCALE62; (2007)10SCC158

Court's Analysis

Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.2006 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Crl. Misc. Application No. 950/2001

Excerpt

.....- multiple petitions - criminal miscellaneous applications filed - dismissed by high court dismissed on ground that two applications were filed in respect of the same impugned order and appellants while filing second application concealed the fact that first application pending - hence, present appeal - held, second application filed due to bona fide mistake and confusion as second application was renumbered as crl. misc. application 950 of 2001 while the earlier application was renumbered as 953 of 2001 - thus, hc order set aside - matter remitted back to hc for reconsideration - motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [dr. arijit pasayat& p. sathasivam, jj] claim for compensation deceased, a bus driver, aged 40 years, getting a salary of rs.4,000/- p.m. and after deduction his take home p[ay was rs.2,367/- and the total emoluments at rs.3,983/- applying multiplier of 12, the tribunal fixed the entitlement at rs.2,16,000/-, in addition rs.15,000/- for non-pecuniary damages and rs.5,000/- as consortium was awarded thus the total compensation awarded was rs.2,46,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. in appeal, high court was of the view that the pay of the deceased was rs.3,536/- and not 2,367/- as noted by the tribunal. accordingly, it fixed the basic pay of rs.3,500/- after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. the monthly contribution was fixed at rs.2,333/- and the annual contribution at rs.27,0996/-. the multiplier was taken at 12. accordingly, entitlement was fixed at rs.3,35,952/- to which was added the sum of rs.20,000/- additionally awarded by the tribunal. in appeal, supreme court adopting the multiplier of 10, the amount payable to the claimants was determined at rs.2,40,000/- to that added the amount of rs.20,000/- fixed by the tribunal for non-pecuniary damages and consortium as there was no challenge by the corporation to the award of such amounts. total compensation awarded was rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. --.....arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single judge of the uttaranchal high court dismissing the criminal miscellaneous applications. the high court took exception to the fact that two petitions were filed in respect of the same impugned order. according to the high court the appellants had concealed the fact that the second petition had been filed while the first petition was pending consideration.3. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:criminal misc. application no.4279 of 1998 was filed by the appellants before the allahabad high court. after bifurcation of the state the said case was transferred to the uttaranchal high court and was re- numbered as criminal misc. application no.953 of 2001. it appears that there was another petition filed which was numbered as criminal misc. application no. 4435 of 1998 and the same was re-numbered as criminal misc. application no. 950 of 2001. the high court was of the view that criminal misc. application no. 4435 of 1998 corresponding to criminal misc. application no. 950 of 2001 was filed earlier and when the appellants failed to get an order of stay they filed the second petition suppressing the fact that one earlier petition was pending. in the second petition the appellants got an order of stay. this according to the high court was a depreciable practice. 4. learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the confusion arose because the latter petition i.e. criminal misc. application no. 4435 of 1998 was renumbered as criminal misc. application 950 of 2001 while the earlier petition i.e. criminal misc. application no. 4279 of 1998 was re-numbered as criminal misc. application no. 953 of 2001. it is pointed out that the said petition was filed on 6.10.1998 and there was an interim order passed in the said case. it is submitted that by mistake the advocate's clerk filed exact copy of the earlier petition which was numbered as criminal misc. application.....

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications. The High Court took exception to the fact that two petitions were filed in respect of the same impugned order. According to the High Court the appellants had concealed the fact that the second petition had been filed while the first petition was pending consideration.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Criminal Misc. Application No.4279 of 1998 was filed by the appellants before the Allahabad High Court. After bifurcation of the State the said case was transferred to the Uttaranchal High Court and was re- numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No.953 of 2001. It appears that there was another petition filed which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 and the same was re-numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001. The High Court was of the view that Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 corresponding to Criminal Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001 was filed earlier and when the appellants failed to get an order of stay they filed the second petition suppressing the fact that one earlier petition was pending. In the second petition the appellants got an order of stay. This according to the High Court was a depreciable practice.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the confusion arose because the latter petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 was renumbered as Criminal Misc. Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4279 of 1998 was re-numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001. It is pointed out that the said petition was filed on 6.10.1998 and there was an interim order passed in the said case. It is submitted that by mistake the advocate's clerk filed exact copy of the earlier petition which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998. The same was filed at a latter date. In this background it was submitted that there was no suppression and in fact there was no reason to mislead the Hon'ble Court.

Per contra learned Counsel for the State submitted that the appellants have not explained satisfactorily as to under what circumstances two similar applications were filed.

5. We find that in fact the confusion arose because the petition filed later was renumbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001 while the petition filed earlier, in which the order of stay granted on 23.12.1998, was re-numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the filing of the second application was on account of confusion and the same in fact was not pressed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the filing of the second application was on account of a bona fide mistake and the confusion arose because of the fact that the second criminal application was renumbered as Crl. Misc. Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier petition was re-numbered as 953 of 2001. In the aforesaid background we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. Since the learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 was not pressed, the same need not be considered by the High Court.

7. Before we part with the case, it has to be noted that several instances have come to our notice that several petitions of similar nature are being filed without disclosing that earlier a petition had been filed. It would be therefore appropriate for the High Courts to make provision in the relevant Rules that in every petition it shall be clearly stated as to whether any earlier petition had been filed and/or is pending in respect of the same cause of action. It shall also be indicated as to what was the result of the earlier petition. If this procedure is followed, the confusion of the kind which has surfaced in this case can be ruled out.

The appeal is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2007 Same Parties Mahendra and ors. vs State of Uttaranchal and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Arijit Pasayat and; S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

Criminal