ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.versusMADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.
- Citation
- 1989 INSC 157
- Decided
- 1 May 1989
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- R S PATHAK
Holding
The Court held that a prima facie inconsistency exists with the earlier precedent and the issues are of substantial public importance, thereby allowing the review petitions and recalling the 1986 judgment for fresh consideration.
Summary
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and others filed review petitions against the Supreme Court's judgment and order dated 20 December 1986 in the Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. case. The respondents argued that the judgment should remain final, while the petitioners contended that the earlier decision conflicted with the law laid down in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. and raised matters of substantial public importance. The Court examined whether a prima facie inconsistency existed between the 1986 judgment and the precedent. Finding that such an inconsistency was indeed present and that the issues were of significant public interest, the Court allowed the review petitions. Consequently, the 1986 judgment and order were recalled, and the matters were ordered to be listed again for fresh consideration without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the judgment dated 20 December 1986 is inconsistent with the law established in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd.
- Whether the points raised by the petitioners constitute matters of substantial public importance warranting a review of the judgment.
- Whether the Supreme Court should recall the earlier judgment and direct fresh consideration of the cases.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 137
- Supreme Court Ruless. Order XL (Judgment Review)
Subjects
Judgment
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND A
OTHERS ETC. ETC.
v.
MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.
MAY 1, 1989
R
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND L.M. SHARMA, J.]
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.
)(
The petitioners-.revenue filed petitions for review of the judgment
and order dated December 20, 1986 passed by this Court. The respon-
dent-manufacturers objected to t.he same on the ground that finality of D
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 E
Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984]
1 SCR 347. Besides, the points raised by the petitioners are of sub-
• stantial public importance and call for reconsideration. [8180 I
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986
are recalled and the cases directed to be listed again for fresh consi- F
deration. [8180]
.. Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984] 1
SCR 347 relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos. G
...,·' 597 to 601 of1987 .
IN
C.A. Nos, 3195/79, 4731-32/84, SLP No. 10108/80 and C.A.No.
793/84. H
817
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.
\
A WITH ·"'
C.A. Nos. 1313 & 388/81, SLP No. 36/80, W.P. No. 192/77, SLP
No. 4041/81 and C.A. No. 2269/80.
A.K. Ganguli, K. Swamy and P. Parmeshwaran for the Peti-
B
~~-
_. ~
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
-
c
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
D judgment when regard is had to the law laid down by this Court in
Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd., [1984] I S.C.R.
347. Inasmuch as the cases are being re-opened, 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
E should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our opi-
nion, 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 judg-
ment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and restore the cases to ,i.;
F 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.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.