TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iminary objection about the maintainability of the special leave petition. 2. Shri Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had earlier challenged the judgment and order dated 12.11.2008 in RFA No.427 of 2006 before this Court. The same came up for hearing before this Court on 4.12.2009 and the respondent entered appearance and opposed the petition. This Court, while condoning the delay in filing SLP, dismissed the SLP on the same day. Later the petitioners filed Review Petition NO.96 of 2011 for reviewing the Judgment dated 12.11.2008 in RFA No.427 of 2006 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Review petition was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 9.9.2011.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asoning of the three Judge Bench Judgment in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another (supra) or Kunhay Ammed and others (supra), in respect of their rival contentions on maintainability. 5. We notice applying the ratio of the Judgments in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another (supra) or Kunhay Ammed and others (supra) conflicting views are being expressed in few of the subsequent judgments of this Court. In Meghamala and others v. G. Narasimha Reddy and others (2010) 8 SCC 383, this Court after referring to Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another (supra) and Kunhay Ammed and others (supra) expressed the following view: "25. Thus, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that in case a litigant files a review p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent, and any order passed by the High Court placing reliance on earlier order, can still be challenged subsequently. 8. In K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamyi (2001) 5 SCC 37 following the Judgment in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another (supra) and Kunhay Ammed and others (supra) this Court further explained the principle of res-judicata and held as follows: "Following the decision in the case of Kunhayammed we are of the view that the dismissal of the special leave petition against the main judgment of the High Court would not constitute res judicata when a special leave petition is filed against the order passed in the review petition provided the review petition was filed prior to filing of special leave petition against the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition. The important question really is whether the judgment of the High Court has merged into the judgment of this Court by the doctrine of merger or not. When this Court dismisses a special leave petition by giving some reasons, however meagre (it can be even of just one sentence), there will be a merger of the judgment of the High Court into the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the special leave petition. According to the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the lower court merges into the judgment of the higher court. Hence, if some reasons, however meagre, are given by this Court while dismissing the special leave petition, then by the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the High Court merges into the judgment of this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....right of appeal to the Supreme Court in contra distinction with the powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, for instance, Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act (SEBI), 1992 confers a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal. So also various regulatory legislations provide for statutory right of appeal. To what extent, the principle of resjudicata and merger would apply in respect of a decision rendered by this Court while exercising its statutory power of appeal as well as the one rendered while entertaining an appeal invoking Article 136 is not seen considered by the larger bench either in Abbai Maligai or Kunhay Ammed'....