Doctrine of locus poenintentae does not empower a court to alter a judgment pronounced in the open court except with notice to the parties and affording them an opportunity to be heard. Read the Review in Rambo Fashions case.

0
287

Rambo Fashions Limited                                       … Review Petitioner (Orig. Petitioner)

                        Versus

Board of Directors,

State Bank of India and ors.                     … Respondents (Orig. Respondents)

SYNOPSIS

The Review Petitioner is constrained to seek a review of the judgment dated 9.9.2021 passed in the above Writ Petition, for the said judgment which was uploaded in the website of the Registry of the Bombay High Court rendered by the division bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief is one rendered void ab initio, still born, one which never existed in the eye of law.

Because what has been authenticated and uploaded is different from the one which was pronounced/dictated in the open Court. This fact is not amenable to dispute or challenge, but is incontrovertible because the judgment itself at paragraph 14 states that the Court wishes to place on record that the statements made in paragraphs 17 and 26 of the writ petition had not been noticed by it while dictating the order in the open court and that in course of editing the draft, the court had occasion to look into the writ petition once again, and on perusal thereof, the Court feels no hesitation to record that the writ petition is an abuse of process of law. It is well settled (Surendra Singh v. State of U.P, 1954 AIR 194) what renders a judgment binding and authoritative is the act of pronouncement in the open court.

A judgment which has been signed and authenticated but not pronounced in the open court, is no judgment at all. A judge is free to change his mind any time till the judgment is pronounced in the open court. The Petitioner is only too willing to even accept a further proposition that a judgment which has been dictated in the open court, but not signed or authenticated can still be even completely varied or modified, provided that the parties to the case are given due notice, in the open court and after affording them a hearing.

This Court in incorporating paragraph 14 which was admittedly not done in the open court but in chambers, entirely behind the back of the Petitioner, has acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, fair hearing. The order of this Court which is sought to be reviewed is, therefore, liable to be declared as rendered Void Ab Inito.

SHARE THIS :