Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. DARSHNA DEVI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (1) 622 1996 SCALE (1)608
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This Court by order dated March 2, 1995 disposed of the
appeal in the light of the earlier law laid down by this
Court. Review petitions in these appeals were filed and the
same came to be dismissed on May 10, 1995. Now these
applications have been filed after changing the counsel, for
clarification and modification of the order.
I.A.No. in CA No. 3450-/95
--------------------------
When this Court asked the counsel as to under what
provisions of law these applications are maintainable, the
counsel found himself unable to bring to out notice any
provision under which this application could be entertained.
The counsel states that the Court can do it under its
inherent power. Inherent power is meant only to correct
orders when other remedy is not available. Since the remedy
by way of review under the rules of this Court has been
provided for and has been availed of, the inherent power
cannot be invoked again for further clarification or
modification. It would be an obvious abuse of the process of
law without any responsibility.
The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.
I.A. Nos. in CA Nos. 3451-3520/95
---------------------------------
If the decree is not drawn in accordance with the
directions of this Court, then remedy would be open to the
petitioners to have that decree corrected according to law.
I.A.s are accordingly disposed of.