16 November 2009
Supreme Court
Download

RAJNI TANDON Vs DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR

Case number: C.A. No.-004671-004671 / 2004
Diary number: 8420 / 2004
Advocates: PRASHANT KUMAR Vs ABHIJIT SENGUPTA


1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  

I.A.NO. 5 IN  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4671 OF 2004

RAJNI TANDON APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

This  is  an  application  filed  by  the  respondents  

praying for re-hearing of the appeal which was disposed  

of by this Court by judgment and order dated 29.7.2009.

  

This appeal was directed to be listed for hearing  

during the Summer Vacation under the heading “Specially  

Directed Matter”, by an order dated 25.11.2008 passed by  

the Bench  presided over  by Hon'ble  the Chief  Justice,  

pursuant  to  which  an  Advance  List  was  issued  for  the  

convenience of the Bar, with the remarks  “No letter for  

deletion will be entertained in the Specially Directed  

Matters.”  The records before us also disclose that a

2

2

notice was issued by the Registry on 15.5.2009 intimating  

all the advocates, including the advocates herein, that  

the matter would be listed during the Summer Vacation and  

would not be deleted from the Vacation Bench.  

In terms of the aforesaid order, the matter was  

listed before us on 18.5.2009.  The records also disclose  

that on 18.5.2009, Mr. Abhijit Sengupta and Mr. Ranjan  

Mukherjee appeared for the respondents.  But Mr. Ranjan  

Mukherjee who is present in Court today disputes the fact  

that he was present in Court on that date.  Be that as it  

may, the Record of Proceedings dated 18.5.2009 indicates  

the presence  of the  advocates for  the respondents,  in  

whose presence the matter was directed to be listed for  

hearing on 19.5.2009.   

On 19.5.2009, only the counsel for the appellant  

appeared  and  none  appeared  for  the  respondents.  After  

hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, hearing  

was concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment.  

The  judgment  ultimately  came  to  be  delivered  on  

29.7.2009.

3

3

In  view  of  the  aforesaid  position,  we  find  no  

ground to entertain this application for re-hearing which  

stands rejected.  

.....................J (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

.....................J (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi; November 16, 2009.