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.