Skip to main content

Recall The Criminal Order When Justice Delivered With Mistake and Ommission ........SC Provisions

 AS PER CRPC 362 RECALL IS ALLOWED BUT NOT REVIEW. RECALL THE WRONG ORDER IF YOU HAVE GROUNDS.

NO TIME LIMIT FOR RECALLING THE ORDER.



Mumbai: Many times court accidentally slip important point which are in favour of applicant and pass adverse order . The orders are some times against supreme court or high court ruling . So in JMFC and session court order cannot be reviewed as per CRPC 362

Central Government Act
Section 362 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
362. Court not to after judgement. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

A careful perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that a Court is not authorised to alter or review its judgment except for the limited purpose of correcting some clerical or arithmetical error. However, there is a saving provision also because Section 362 Cr.P.C. starts with the words "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force"

The saving provision is section 401 Cr.P.C. which clearly provides that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.


IMPORTANT CITATIONS

 In Asit Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2009(1) SCR 469, this Court made a distinction between recall and review which is as under:-"There is a distinction between ...... a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition, the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singth & Ors. [2007(11) SCC 374] cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences." 


Supreme Court of India

Vishnu Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 22 February, 2011 [2011 Crl. L.J. 1744 (SC)]

In our opinion, Section 362 cannot be considered in a rigid and over technical manner to defeat the ends of justice. "The Court should not give its decision based only on the letter of the law.

For if the decision is wholly unreasonable, injustice will follow."

Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the respondent was an application for recall of the Order dated 2.9.2003 and not for review. In Asit Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2009(1) SCR 469, this Court made a distinction between recall and review which is as under:-

"There is a distinction between ...... a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition, the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply  recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singth & Ors. [2007(11) SCC 374] cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences."

Ram Abhilakh Vs. State of U.P.; 2007 AIR (SCW) 922

In Ram Abhilakh's case (supra), a criminal revision was dismissed in absence of appellant's counsel. A recall application was moved by the applicant which was also dismissed. The matter went to Supreme Court where it was submitted that because of circumstances beyond control there could be no appearance of the counsel when the matter was taken up. The Apex Court considering the fact that prior to the date of disposal the appellants were diligently pursuing the remedy, set aside the order of High Court and directed it to hear the matter on merit after hearing learned counsel for both the parties.

 Santosh Vs. State of U.P.; 2009 (65) ACC 224

The judgment in Santosh's case (supra) also reveals almost similar facts. In this case, Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the revision petition filed by the revisionist Santosh. Two revisions were pending in the same matter. However, the matter was taken up by Hon'ble Single Judge ex-parte and the revision was dismissed. An application for recall was filed which was also dismissed on the ground that the order sought to be recalled was passed on merits and, therefore, it cannot be recalled. During the hearing before Hon'ble Supreme Court learned counsel for the appellant indicated various reasons for non appearance on the date when the matter was taken up. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the High Court for afresh consideration on merits.

Allahabad High Court             

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of U.P. & Others on 20 November, 2015

“Now the question is whether a criminal court has power to recall its order. There is no doubt that Section 362 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced below creates a bar in this respect :

"S. 362. Court not to after judgement. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

A careful perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that a Court is not authorised to alter or review its judgment except for the limited purpose of correcting some clerical or arithmetical error. However, there is a saving provision also because Section 362 Cr.P.C. starts with the words "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force"

The saving provision is section 401 Cr.P.C. which clearly provides that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

..... In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the firm view that Section 362 Cr.P.C. only bars a "review" of the order. It does not bar "recall" of any order specially if the order has been passed ex-parte against the principle of natural justice. 

--------------------------------------------

RECALL OF CRIMINAL ORDER

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a recall order is distinct from a review of order, that a recall cannot be refused by strictly applying provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. (see the decision in Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another [2011 Crl. L.J. 1744 (SC)] etc.). Moreover, when the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not considered, it is a serious matter and therefore, there is no legal impediment in recalling the orders in the above Crl. M. C.s. The orders allowing the Crl. M.C.s are hereby recalled, suo motu.


_------------------------

Recall of order CRPC 362  allahabad HC

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144514360/

"S. 362. Court not to after judgement. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

A careful perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that a Court is not authorised to alter or review its judgment except for the limited purpose of correcting some clerical or arithmetical error. However, there is a saving provision also because Section 362 Cr.P.C. starts with the words "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force"

The saving provision is section 401 Cr.P.C. which clearly provides that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

---------------_-----_-----_-----

Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the respondent was an application for recall of the Order dated 2.9.2003 and not for review. In Asit Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2009(1) SCR 469, this Court made a distinction between recall and review which is as under:-

"There is a distinction between ...... a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition, the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singth & Ors. [2007(11) SCC 374] cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences."Supreme Court of India

Vishnu Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 22 February, 2011

Author: .......................J.

Bench: Markandey Katju, Gyan Sudha Misra 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/566105/




Because it is settled law that no act of the Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake, vide, inter alia, AIR 1966 SC 1631, Jang Singh v Brij Lal & others:

      “There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than

       the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is he               

       bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a           

       mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he

        would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly   

        summed up in the maxim: "Actus curiae neminem    

       gravabit".”

            The same is the ratio of Jagat Dhish Bhargava v Jawahar Lal

Bhargava, AIR 1961 SC 832:

            “(T)here can be no doubt that the litigant deserves to be protected against the default committed or negligence shown by the Court or its  officers in the discharge of their duties. As observed by Cairnes, L. C. in Rodger v. Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris as early as 1871 "one of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors"”

            The same is the ratio of Samarendra Nath Sinha v Krishna Kumar Nag, AIR 1967 SC 1440:

            “Now, it is well-settled that there is an inherent power in the court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. "Every court," said Bowen L. J. in Mellor v. Swira "has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its power and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when passed and entered may be amended by the court so as to carry out its intention and express the meaning of the court when the order was made."



      The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Orissa vs Mamata Mohanty", (2011) 3 SCC 436 it has been held that the High Court must correct errors committed by it instead of allowing it to remain on record. This is what it was held:

"This principle also applies to judicial pronouncements. Once the court comes to the conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it becomes the solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in Hotel Balaji and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. ,AIR 1993 SC 1048 observed as under:

..................To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter (A.M.Y. at page 18: `a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

JUDGE पर Advocate को छेड़ने की FIR दर्ज़...

  जानबूझ कर ADJ ने महिला एडवोकेट के कंधे मे हाथ रखा हाईकोर्ट पहुंचा मामला: वकील से छेड़छाड़ के आरोप में अतिरिक्त जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश पर केस दर्ज शिकायत के आधार पर भिवानी महिला थाना पुलिस ने निलंबित ADJ और उसके साथी वकील के खिलाफ IPC की धारा 354A, 509, 34 और 67 IT ACT के तहत केस दर्ज कर लिया है. Bhiwani:हाईकोर्ट ने इस मामले में जांच आरंभ की और सीसीटीवी फुटेज की प्रति आरोपी जज को सौंपी। महिला वकील ने कहा कि यह सीसीटीवी फुटेज उस घटना का गोपनीय सबूत था लेकिन आरोपी जज ने उसकी छवि खराब करने के लिए इसे लीक कर दिया। महिला वकील से छेड़छाड़ के आरोप में अतिरिक्त जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश (एडीजे) पर भिवानी पुलिस ने मुकदमा दर्ज किया है। महिला वकील की शिकायत को सेशन जज ने सीसीटीवी फुटेज के साथ हाईकोर्ट भेजा था। पंजाब-हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट ने जज को 31 अगस्त को निलंबित कर दिया था और जांच जारी है। महिला वकील ने शिकायत दी थी कि 12 अगस्त को जब वह कोर्ट परिसर में थी तो अतिरिक्त जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश सामने थे। विश करने पर जज ने नाम पूछा और अपना हाथ उसके कंधे पर रख दिया। आपत्तिजनक व्यवहार किया। विरोध करने पर

Police Station में videography अपराध नही: High Court, NO BAN IN VIDEO SHOOTING INSIDE POLICE STATION

MAKING VIDEO OF DISCUSSION IS NOT OFFENCE.POLICE STATION DOES NOT COME UNDER PROHIBITED AREA FOR VIDEO SHOOTING . PEOPLE SHOULD NOT MAKE VIDEO OF ARMS ROOM .  Nagpur: पुलिस थाने में कार्रवाई के दौरान अपने मोबाइल पर वीडियो बनाने वाले वर्धा निवासी एक व्यक्ति को बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट की नागपुर खंडपीठ ने दोषमुक्त किया है। यह है पूरा मामला:  याचिकाकर्ता रवींद्र उपाध्याय का अपने ही क्षेत्र के एक निवासी के साथ कृषि भूमि को लेकर विवाद चल रहा था। याचिकाकर्ता पर आरोप था कि, उन्होंने पुलिस स्टेशन में इसी कार्रवाई के दौरान चुपके से वीडियो रिकॉर्डिंग कर ली। ऐसे में पुलिस ने उनके खिलाफ ऑफिशियल सीक्रेट्स एक्ट 1923 की धारा 3 के तहत मामला दर्ज कर लिया। इस मामले में पुलिस ने जांच पूरी करके याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ चार्जशीट दायर कर दी। एफआईआर और चार्जशीट खारिज करने के लिए याचिकाकर्ता ने हाईकोर्ट की शरण ली थी। याचिकाकर्ता पर एफआईआर खारिज करते वक्त हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि, ऑफिशियल सीक्रेट्स एक्ट की धारा 3 के तहत मामला तब दर्ज हो सकता है, जब किसी व्यक्ति ने प्रतिबंधित स्थान की तस्वीरें या चित्र निकालकर  देश के दुश्मन को फ

Contempt Filed Against Bombay High Court Ex Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog At Supreme Court

  Delhi: Civil Contempt petition filed against Ex CJ Bombay High Court Shri Pradeep Nandrajog for violating Hon'ble Supreme Court constitution bench order  in Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan, ( (2016) 8 SCC 509 ) has held that access of justice is an integral part of the guarantee contained in  Article 21  and  14  of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to not only citizens but non-citizens also.  In Civil PIL 159/2016 Sapan Shrivastava VS HRD Ministry the petitioner challenged the validity of ICSE/ISC Board . In Earlier hearing court directed State to file reply but inspite of final warning the State did not filed replied. HRD in RTI reply said that it does not recognise CISCE operated ICSE/ISC board.  In final order the court of Shri Pradeep Nandrajog and Smt Bharti Dangre passed the order and  admitted the submission of CISCE that ICSE /ISC board is recognised from all the states and UT. On 5th Sept 2019 Court put the cost o

Breaking News : Indemnity to be given by empanelled valuer with Canara Bank......

  The Public Sector Bank #Canara bank having head office at Bangalore Listed in #NSE and #BSE with #Scrip Code – regulated by #RBI has published #RFP for #Empanelment of #valuer to disinvest its subsidiary with a RFP title # EMPANELMENT OF QUALIFIED #VALUATION #EXPERT FOR VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVESTMENT / WINDING UP OF CANARA BANK’S OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARY, #CANARA BANK (TANZANIA) LIMITED. CANARA BANK, is a body Corporate and a premier Public Sector Bank established in the Year 1906 and nationalized under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head office at 112, J C Road, Bengaluru – 560 002 and among others, is having International Operations Wing (IO Wing) at 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross, Y Ramachandra Road, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560 009. The Bank is having a Total Business – Rs. 18,27,556 Cr. with Gross Advances –Rs.7,41,147 Cr. and Gross Deposits – Rs.10,86,409 Cr. as on 31.03.2022. The grievance is filed against Canara Bank a public

Court Ordered FIR Against Inspector For Filing False Chargesheet In Court

  ACCUSED FILED CRPC 156 COMPLAINT FOR FALSE REPORT UNDER CRPC 173. अंबेडकरनगर के SI पर FIR:3 साल पहले केस में विवेचना के दौरान गलत रिपोर्ट लगाई, कोर्ट ने दिया कार्रवाई का आदेश 3 साल पहले केस में विवेचना के दौरान गलत रिपोर्ट लगाई, कोर्ट ने दिया कार्रवाई का आदेश|अम्बेडकरनगर, Ambedkarnagar  ये फोटो आरोपी SI रमेश शुक्ल की है। कोर्ट ने उन पर कार्रवाई का आदेश दिया है। अंबेडकरनगर के सम्मनपुर थाने में तैनात रहे दरोगा रमेश चंद्र शुक्ल के खिलाफ कोर्ट ने केस दर्ज कर विवेचना का आदेश दिया है। उन पर आरोप है कि आरोपी को बचाने के लिए नियमों के खिलाफ काम किया है। वर्तमान समय में आरोपी एसआई जिले के अहिरौली थाने में तैनात है। सम्मनपुर थाना इलाके के आलमपुर गोमून गांव निवासी गंगाराम ने घटना के सम्बंध में 25 जुलाई 2019 को धारा 352, 504, 506 और 436 के तहत केस दर्ज कराया था। इसकी विवेचना उप निरीक्षक रमेश चंद्र शुक्ला द्वारा किया गया। आरोप है कि विवेचना के दौरान बिना साक्ष्य जुटाए झूठा मुकदमा दिखाकर एसआई ने फाइनल रिपोर्ट लगा दिया गया। मामले में पीड़ित गंगाराम ने इसकी शिकायत एसपी से कर न्याय की गुहार लगाया, लेक

जज मजिस्ट्रेट कैसे बेईमानी करते है , कैसे इससे बचे!

  कई लोग कोर्ट जाते है और हार कर चले आते है। ऑर्डर पूंछने पर एक लाइन का आर्डर दिखा देते है जिसमे लिखा होता है कि petitioner या respondent ने कुछ नही कहा। बाहर आकर शिकायत करते है की जज ने उसकी points को माना ही नही और केस हार गया। आजकल जज भी dishonest हो गए है और सुप्रीम court की guidelines की अनुसार काम नही करते और निर्णय एक पक्ष की बात सुनकर कर देते है। सब हारे हुए लोग कहते है की उसके points order में नही add किए। ऐसा जज इसलिए करता है की अगर points add कर देगे तो निर्णय उलट जाएगा। हर पक्ष को अपनी सब बाते ऑर्डर में add करवाना चाहिए । अगर points नही add हुए तो यही समझा जाएगा की आपकी पास कोई facts या points नही थे और आप कोर्ट में मौन रहे।  अगर इस कारण आप कोर्ट में कोई केस हार गए है तो फिर से केस active करे और विजय प्राप्त करें क्योंकि केस के बाद आप नहीं ऑर्डर बोलता है।  आर्डर ठीक करने की कोई टाइमर लिमिट नही है। यह अनाचार आपको दिल्ली तक मिलेगा क्योंकि कोई भी detail और reasoned ऑर्डर नही पास करना चाहता। जज को गलती करने का अधिकार नही है और जज की गलती पर state हर्जाना देगा। वैसे कुछ जज नियम

Supreme Court Clerks Are Deciding Maintainability of Petition Not Judge

  CORRUPTION IN SUPREME COURT REGISTRY , NOT GIVING DIARY NUMBER AND REJECTING PETITION WITHOUT QUOTING APPROPRIATE SECTION OF SCR 2013. AS PER SC ORDER ONLY JUDGE CAN DECIDE MAINTAINABILITY OF PETITION Supreme Court of India P. Surendran vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2019 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85097973/ 10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench. Dear Mr. MANUBHAI HARGOVANDAS PATEL  I am hereby directed to inform you that the document uploaded by you vide Ref. id No. 3754/2023 in view of prayers (a) and (b) the Writ

Rs 1.69 Cr Expense Done For VC at Bombay High Court But No VIDEO CONFERENCE Link For Public

 ONLY JUSTICE GS PATEL PUBLISHING VC LINK IN CAUSELIST जनता का पैसा बर्बाद हो रहा है. कोई नहीं चाहता की जनता का पैसा और समय बचे।  ADVOCATES CANNOT ATTEND MULTIPLE COURTS DUE TO NO VC OPTION,PARTY IN PERSONS ALSO SUFFERING  सेवा की जगह तानाशाही कर रहे है JUDGES , बिना गद्दी के राजा है , सुप्रीम कोर्ट से कुछ नहीं सीखना चाहते .... At Delhi High Court VC link s are available at Causlist, at SC it is sent by Email. At MP HC IT department provide it on request . RTI Information 1. VC Guidelines or any for Bombay High Court with copy  2. Online Mentioning Email ID  before Hon\'ble Courts guidelines copy. 3. Total Amount of Expense Done for VC facility  at High Court between Jan 2020 to Dec 2022 by State or any. THIS COST FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING IS INCLUDING ALL BENCHES OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT Public Information Officer Bombay High Court: Shri Pankaj A. Patki 2665857 2662488 Presiding Officer 8208405880(M) __ __________________

Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court01 2. Court No. 2 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court02 3. Court No. 3 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court03 4. Court No. 4 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court04 5. Court No. 5 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court05 6. Court No. 6 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court06 7. Court No. 7 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court07 8. Court No. 8 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court08 9. Court No. 9 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court09          9A Court no.10            https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court10 10. Court No. 11 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court11 11. Court No. 12 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court12 12. Court No. 13 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court13 13. Court No. 14 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court14