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.