1995 (12) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitions is as under :- "One of the grounds taken for the prayer made to hear oral arguments before deciding the review petitions is that there was no opportunity to supplement the written submissions filed before the Bench of three Judges and that the same could not be supplemented before the Constitution Bench. Accordingly, we permit the filing of supplementary written submissions, if any, by the parties mentioning therein and emphasizing the additional submissions, if any on which reliance is sought to be placed. The supplementary written submissions, if any, be filed by the parties within four weeks. The prayer made for hearing oral arguments on the review petitions would then be considered. The matters be listed in Chambers the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tilleries Ltd. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1995 (1) SCC 574, is invalid on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the decision in A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr., 1988 (Suppl.1) SCR 1, in support of these submissions. In substance, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the civil appeals having been decided on merits without being heard on merits, the judgment rendered therein is invalid for violation of principles of natural justice. In our opinion, there is no merit in this submission. The foundation for the argument advanced in support of the writ petition does not exist. The above-quoted orders dated 25.4.1995 and 8.8.1995 clearly show that even after th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uot;........Antulay case is also distinguishable for the reason that therein the result of the earlier decision against him challenged by Antulay in the petition under Article 32 had the effect of conferring jurisdiction on a Court contrary to the specific statutory provision ..... Moreover, judgment of Mishra, J. as well as that of Mukhar ji, J. as their Lordships were then, give a clear indication that the decision therein was not intended to be a precedent and was confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. This distinction is sufficient to hold that Antulay does not permit these petitioners to claim reconsideration of the earlier decision in these circumstances." It is clear that the decision in Antulay is based....