Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
M. POORNACHANDRAN & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA, S.B. MAJMUDAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh
Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard
and decided on merits. The Review Petition has been filed by
Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel
when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of
arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the
grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an
appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of
review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to
permit such practice. That part, he has not obtained "No
Objection Certificate" from the Advocate-on-Record in the
appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him
of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No Objection
Certificate" would be the basis for him to come on record.
Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the
Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate"
from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the
Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no
merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter.
On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition.