AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2019

Subscribe

RSS Feed img




Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Ors Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [1989] INSC 162 (1 May 1989)

Pathak, R.S. (Cj) Pathak, R.S. (Cj) Sharma, L.M. (J)

CITATION: 1989 SCR (2) 817 1989 SCC (3) 238 JT 1989 (2) 332 1989 SCALE (1)1592

ACT:

Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XL--Judgment inconsistent with law on certain items--Review of--Points of substantial public importance raised--Review petitions allowed.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 137--Judgment--Review of--When permitted.

HEAD NOTE:

The petitioners-revenue filed petitions for review of the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 passed by this Court. The respondent-manufacturers objected to the same on the ground that finality of the judgment should be maintained and not disturbed lightly.

Allowing the Review petitions, this Court,

HELD: Prima facie an inconsistency is present in the judgment in respect of certain items when regard is had to the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984] 1 SCR 347. Besides, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance and call for reconsideration[818D] Accordingly, the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 are recalled and the cases directed to be listed again for fresh consideration. [818D] Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984] 1 SCR 347 relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos. 597 to 60 1 of 1987.

IN C.A. Nos, 3195/79, 4731-32/84, SLP No. 10108/80 and C.A.No. 793/84.

818

WITH C.A. Nos. 1313 & 388/81, SLPNo. 36/80, W.P. No. 192/77, SLP No. 404 1/81 and C.A. No. 2269/80.

A.K. Ganguli, K. Swamy and P. Parmeshwaran for the Petitioners.

F.S. Nariman, Anil B. Diwan, R.K. Lukose, K.R. Nambir, A.N. Haksar, D.N. Mishra and P.K. Ram for the Respondent.

The Order of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, CJ. After hearing learned counsel for the parties briefly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 of which review is sought, should be recalled and the cases be heard again on the merits. It appears to us prima facie that in respect of certain items an inconsistency is present in the impugned judgment when regard is had to the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 347. Inasmuch as the cases are being reopened, we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on the merits of the points raised in the cases. Objection was taken by the respondent manufacturers to the Review Petitions on the ground that the finality of the judgment should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our opinion, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance, and therefore call for reconsideration.

Accordingly, we allow the Review Petitions, and recall the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and restore the cases to their original number and direct that they be listed again for fresh consideration. There is no order as to costs.

N.P. V Petitions allowed.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys