TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (5) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reference and appointed an umpire. The arbitrators, on 11-7-1987, gave an award for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 to be paid by the appellant herein to the respondent in three instalments. The respondent filed a suit against the arbitrators and the appellant. The said suit was numbered as Suit No. 1377 of 1987. The prayer in the suit was for a decree in terms of the arbitration award. The said suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000. It is relevant to mention here that the said decree did not provide for any pendente lite interest. Thereafter, the decree holder put the decree in execution. In the execution proceedings, the decree holder claimed pendente lite interest at the rate of 24 per cent. However, the claim of interest by the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant filed a review petition before this Court in SLP(C) No. 750 of 1993. This review petition was dismissed on 16-4-1993. On 17-2-1993 - the High Court dismissed the review petition. The appellant, thereafter, filed special leave petition against the order dated 17-2-1993 passed by the High Court rejecting the review petition. This Court, on 29-10-1993, granted leave and the special leave petition was converted into this civil appeal. 2. Mr. B. Kanta Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection that earlier special leave petition filed by the appellant having been dismissed by this Court, the second special leave petition was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Court. Special leave petitions were preferred before the Supreme Court where the respondents were present on caveat. Both the sides were heard through the senior advocates representing them. The special leave petitions were dismissed. The High Court thereafter entertained review petitions which were highly belated and having condoned the delay reversed the orders made earlier in civil revision petitions. The orders in review were challenged by filing appeals under leave granted on special leave petitions. This court observed that what was done by the learned Single Judge was 'subversive of judicial discipline.' The facts and circumstances of the case persuaded this court to form an opinion that the tenants were indulging in vexatiou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissal of the special leave petition against the main judgment, a party files a review petition after a long delay on the ground that the party was prosecuting remedy by way of special leave petition. In such a situation the filing of review would be an abuse of the process of the law. We are in agreement with the view taken in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm's case (supra ) that if High Court allows the review petition filed after the special leave petition was dismissed after condoning the delay, it would be treated as affront to the order of the Supreme Court. But this is not the case here. In the present case, review petition was filed well within time and since the review petition was not being decided by the High Court, the appellan....