LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ANDOTHERS ETC. ETC vs MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD on 1 May, 1989

Cites 1 provisionsCites 1 judgmentsCited by 0
Official PDFBench Raghunandan Swarup Pathak (presiding), Lalit Mohan Sharma
PETITIONER:
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ANDOTHERS ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1989
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
BENCH:
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 inconsist-
ent with law on certain items--Review of--Points of substan-
tial public importance raised--Review petitions allowed.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article
137--Judgment--Review of--When permitted.
HEADNOTE:
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]

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.

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.