2021 (9) TMI 1571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the revenue/respondents against the order passed W.P. No. 19153 of 2008 along with a condone delay petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2013, for condonation of delay of 1514 days. 2. When these Miscellaneous Petitions were taken up for hearing, Mr. B. Sathish Sundar, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that he has given change of vakalat to the writ petitioner and a memo to that effect is filed. 3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the review application is pending before this Court for the past about 8 years. All along the learned counsel for the review petitioner on record was continuing as a counsel on record. When the matter is listed for final hearing, it is represented that the learned counsel for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... conducting the case in respect of such litigant or on behalf of such lawyers. Even in cases where memo is filed, it is the duty of the lawyer, who received the legal fees and the litigant, to ensure that an alternate arrangement is made to represent the case, so as to assist the Court for the effective disposal of the cases. 6. This being the principles to be followed, at the request of this Court, learned counsel Mr. B. Sathish Sundar, assisted the Court and accordingly, the following orders are passed. 7. The review application is filed mainly on the ground that there is an error apparent while applying the ratio of the decision rendered in WP No. 18918 of 2000 and connected batch of cases on the facts of the present case, which is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ified. Such modifications are essential in view of the fact that it is brought to the notice of this Court that the facts and circumstances of the present case are not akin to that of the facts and circumstances decided by this Court in WP No. 18918 of 2000 etc. batch of cases. When the facts are distinguishable then the case of the petitioner is to be decided independently. Accordingly the order dated 29.09.2008 passed in WP No. 19153 of 2008 stands modified in respect of paragraph No. 5 as under. "Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to commence and complete the entire process pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent on 27.01.2005 and pass final orders on merits....