1960 (8) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... record and therefore the judgment in question should be reviewed. The petitioner contends further that the judgment under review had dealt with the matter of issue of writs by High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution and this involved a question which could only have been dealt by a bench of not less than five judges-and that is why the review application has been placed before a bench of five judges. Lastly it is contended that this Court should have decided the question of jurisdiction as various. Other parties had agreed to be governed by the decision in this case and that would have saved multiplicity of proceedings. Before we deal with the points urged in support of the petition we should like to state what exactly has been deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence to Allisons' Case ([1957] S.C.R. 359.) was made only to show that in almost similar circumstances (except that Allison's Case came to this Court on a certificate granted under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution), this Court had refused to decide the question of jurisdiction as there was no failure of justice. The judgment under review did not deal with the powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and nowhere laid down anything in conflict with the previous decision of this Court in H. V. Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others([1955] 1 S.C.R. 1104). Thus the narrow point decided by the judgment under review was that when dealing with an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution this Court comes to the conclusion ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on that there is no ground for review of the judgment even if it be assumed that certain provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, were relevant and had not been considered. The main plank however of the petitioner is that this Court was bound to consider the question of jurisdiction and the question whether there was failure of justice or not was bound up with the question of jurisdiction and a decision on that question was necessary to arrive at the conclusion that there was no failure of justice. This contention also must in our opinion be rejected, specially in the context of the narrow point which, as we have already indicated, was decided in the judgment under review. Besides it is not unknown to law that decisions o....