SUPERTECH LIMITED versus EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

SUPERTECH LIMITED versus EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

The application was in substance a request to substantively modify the Court's final judgment and therefore amounted to a disguised review; such substantive modification cannot be sought by a miscellaneous application and the attempt to use Order LV Rule 6 to bypass the review procedure in Order XLVII is impermissible; accordingly the miscellaneous application was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Supertech Limited; Respondent: Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Post Judgment Miscellaneous Application Seeking Modification of Judgment Dated 31.08.2021
Outcome
Miscellaneous Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Modification of Judgment, Review Vs Miscellaneous Application, Finality of Judgments, Abuse of Process, Demolition Order, Compliance With Building Regulations, UP Apartments Act 2010
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Property Law Urban Planning/building Regulations Modification of Judgment Review Vs Miscellaneous Application Finality of Judgments Abuse of Process +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supertech Limited

Applicant/appellant

Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Post Judgment Miscellaneous Application Seeking Modification of Judgment Dated 31.08.2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a miscellaneous application can be used to obtain substantive modification of a final judgment of this Court
  2. 2 Whether Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 can be used to bypass the review procedure in Order XLVII
  3. 3 Whether the proposal to retain Tower 16 and slice Tower 17 could lawfully remedy the breaches identified in the judgment (building regulations, green area, UP Apartments Act, reduction of undivided interest)

Ratio Decidendi

The application was in substance a request to substantively modify the Court's final judgment and therefore amounted to a disguised review; such substantive modification cannot be sought by a miscellaneous application and the attempt to use Order LV Rule 6 to bypass the review procedure in Order XLVII is impermissible; accordingly the miscellaneous application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Miscellaneous Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No.1572 of 2021 dismissed.