Supreme Court of India
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr Lrs on 5 February, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2021
Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020
Neelam Manmohan Attavar …Applicant/Petitioner
Manmohan Attavar (D) through LRs. …Respondent(s)
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. The present application has been preferred by the
applicant/petitioner herein to recall the order passed by this
Court dated 03.09.2020 passed in Transferred Case (Criminal)
No. 1 of 2020.
2. We have heard the applicantpetitioner in person at length.
When we pointed out to the applicantpetitioner in person that as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
earlier another application filed by her for the very same relief as
in the present application was dismissed by this Court, the
second application for the same relief could not be maintainable,
the applicantpetitioner in person submitted that one of us (Dr.
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse himself from
hearing the present application. We see no valid and good
ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might
not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for
recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by
seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the
applicantpetitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present
miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is
3. Now so far as the present application on merits is
concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier
one other application was filed by the applicantpetitioner in
person for the very relief, i.e., to recall order dated 03.09.2020
passed by this Court in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020
and the same came to be lodged by the Registrar and the
application challenging the order of the Registrar lodging the
application for recall of the order dated 03.09.2020 was
dismissed. That thereafter, once again, the applicantpetitioner
in person has preferred the present application for the very relief,
i.e., for recalling of order dated 03.09.2020 which shall not be
maintainable. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that
order dated 03.09.2020 was pronounced after hearing the
applicant. As observed hereinabove, earlier IA for recalling of
order dated 03.09.2020 was dismissed and at that time also the
applicantpetitioner in person was also heard.
4. In view of the above, the present application also deserves to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. It is observed that
the Registry shall not accept any further miscellaneous
application on the subject matter of order dated 03.09.2020 or
the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in IA No. 101770 of 2020 or
in the present order.
………………………………………J. [Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
New Delhi; ………………………………………J.
February 05, 2021. [M.R. Shah]