Madras High Court
Perunthalaivar Kamarajar vs The Director General Of Shipping on 27 August, 2021
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
Review Application No.8 of 2021:
Perunthalaivar Kamarajar
Institute of Maritime Science and Engineering,
rep. by its Chief Executive Officer
Tamilarasu Sambandam,
1069, Thirupaninatham, Keerapalayam Post,
Chidambaram – 608 602,
Cuddalore District. .. Applicant
Vs
1.The Director General of Shipping,
Training Branch,
The Directorate General of Shipping,
9th Floor Beta Building,
I-Thinking Techno Campus,
Kanjurmarg (East),
Mumbai-400 042.
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
2.The Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust,
No.303, Mayuresh Chambers,
Plot No.60, Sector-11,
Opp. Raheja Arcade,
CBD Belapur (W), Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India,
Pin Code – 400 614. .. Respondents
Review Application No.96 of 2021:
1.Mugilan
2.Sanjeev
3.Vignesh Arumugam .. Applicants
Vs
1.The Director General of Shipping,
Training Branch,
The Directorate General of Shipping,
9th Floor Beta Building,
I-Thinking Techno Campus,
Kanjurmarg (East),
Mumbai-400 042.
2.The Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust,
No.303, Mayuresh Chambers,
Plot No.60, Sector-11,
Opp. Raheja Arcade,
CBD Belapur (W), Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India,
Pin Code – 400 614.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
3.Perunthalaivar Kamarajar
Institute of Maritime Science and Engineering,
rep. by its Chief Executive Officer
Tamilarasu Sambandam,
1069, Thirupaninatham, Keerapalayam Post,
Chidambaram – 608 602,
Cuddalore District. .. Respondents
W.A.No.834 of 2021:
1.Mugilan
2.Sanjeev
3.Vignesh Arumugam .. Appellants
Vs
1.The Director General of Shipping,
Training Branch,
The Directorate General of Shipping,
9th Floor, Beta Building,
I-Thinking Techno Campus,
Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai-400 042.
2.The Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust,
No.303, Mayuresh Chambers,
Plot No.60, Sector-11,
Opp. Raheja Arcade,
CBD Belapur (W), Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India, Pin Code – 400 614.
3.Perunthalaivar Kamarajar
Institute of Maritime Science and Engineering,
rep. by its Chief Executive Officer
Tamilarasu Sambandam,
1069, Thirupaninatham, Keerapalayam Post,
Chidambaram – 608 602,
Cuddalore District. .. Respondents
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
Prayer: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the judgment dated
29.10.2020 passed in W.A.No.962 of 2020.
Writ Appeal No.834 of 2021 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 06.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.6988 of 2020.
For the Petitioner in : Mr.P.Wilson
Rev.Aplw.No.8/2021 Senior Advocate
and Respondent No.3 for M/s.Wilson Associates
in Rev.Aplw.No.96/2021
and W.A.No.834/2021
For the Petitioners in : Mr.G.Sankaran
Rev.Aplw.No.96/2021 for M/s.JP Dhanyasree
and the Appellants
in W.A.No.834/2021
For the First Respondent : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan
in Review Applications Asst. Solicitor-General
and in Writ Appeal
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Two review applications have been filed and there is an appeal
from the original order that was affirmed by the order under review.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
2. According to the review petitioners, the order dated October
29, 2020 failed to notice documents which were on record and the
same amounts to an error apparent on the face of the order. The
review petitioners submit that as a consequence of the relevant
material not being alluded to in the order under review, there has been
serious miscarriage of justice.
3. There is a distinction between an error apparent on the face of
an order and an error of assessment. No court or judge can say that
the assessment made was perfectly justified or there cannot be
another point of view. However, an order of assessment is conclusive
as far as that level is concerned and the assessment may be
challenged before a superior forum by way of an appeal or revision or
the like. The power exercised in considering an appeal is completely
different from the power exercised in reviewing an order.
4. The grounds of review in the present case touch upon the
very propriety of the assessment involved as the review petitioners
suggest that relevant considerations that ought to have been taken
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
into account may not have been taken into account while making the
order. While that may be a good ground in the appeal, it may not
necessarily be a ground that would excite the court at the same level
to re-visit the order and permit the entire matter to be re-agitated.
5. It is neither review petitioner's case that any event
subsequent to the making of the order or any material discovered
subsequent to the making of the order requires the matter to be
reconsidered. Both the review petitioners insist that on the basis of
the material that was available before the court at the time that the
order was pronounced, it would be evident that the order of the single
Bench could not have been sustained. Such submission amounts to an
assertion that the adjudication may have been gone awry or the
assessment conducted may have been faulty. While these may
constitute grounds for carrying the order to a higher forum by way of
an appeal or otherwise, they are not grounds for reopening the matter
at this level.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
6. As far as the appeal is concerned, once the court has dealt
with the grounds urged by a similarly placed appellant, a further
appeal may not be entertained. While it is possible that when one
side's appeal is dismissed, the opponent's appeal may still be
entertained and an order made thereon, when there are several
similarly placed parties in a matter and one of such person's appeal is
dealt with in a particular manner, the appellate order in such a
situation will govern all other parties similarly situated and fresh
appeals cannot be pursued by the individual parties.
7. In view of the aforesaid, Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of
2021 and W.A.No.834 of 2021 are dismissed. C.M.P.Nos.4758, 974,
11168, 4759 and 11173 of 2021 are closed.
There will be no order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
27.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
bbr
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
To:
1.The Director General of Shipping,
Training Branch,
The Directorate General of Shipping,
9th Floor, Beta Building,
I-Thinking Techno Campus,
Kanjurmarg (East),
Mumbai-400 042.
2.The Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust,
No.303, Mayuresh Chambers,
Plot No.60, Sector-11,
Opp. Raheja Arcade,
CBD Belapur (W), Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India,
Pin Code – 400 614.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
bbr
Review Application Nos.8 and 96 of 2021
and W.A.No.834 of 2021
27.08.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
