Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application for modification or clarification of a final judgment could be entertained to revisit the earlier decision on the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority's Bench.
Analysis: The earlier judgment had conclusively decided the dispute regarding the need for a Judicial Member in the Bench constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The present application was filed nearly eight years later and sought, in substance, reopening of that concluded adjudication. The Court held that such a request was not a permissible clarification but an indirect attempt at review or reversal of a final judgment. The Court further held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to assist a litigant in abusing the process of justice or to reopen a matter that had attained finality when no timely appeal or review had been pursued.
Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A final judgment cannot be reopened through a belated application styled as one for modification or clarification, and inherent powers cannot be invoked to secure a de facto review of a concluded decision.