TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 2230/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12111 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 6119/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8935 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 6120/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8954 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 6131/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9049 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 7653/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8559 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 7922/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8511 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 8510/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8925 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 8554/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9214 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 9317/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12114 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 20589/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9595 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 21094/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8898 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 21378/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11853 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 22637/2019) IN CIVIL APPEA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Ishita Deswal, Adv. Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Bhavana Moolchandani, Adv. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. S. K. Rajora, Adv. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Sudeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Malik, Adv. Mr. Akul Mahendru, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Sethi, Adv. Mr. Sameeer Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Raheja, AOR Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Dr. Sham Chand, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nina R Nariman, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alok Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. R.P Bansal, Adv. Mr. R.jawaharal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bawa, Adv. Mr. Anuj Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohit, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Ms. Abha Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankur Bansal, AOR Mr. Davesh Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR Mr. Anirudh Bakru, Adv. Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Adv. Mr. Ayush Puri, Adv. Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act'), reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. It is the case on behalf of the applicants that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which was relied upon while dismissing/disposing off all the respective appeals has been specifically overruled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is submitted on behalf of the respective applicants that by specifically overruling the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically observed and held that not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is overruled, but all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed are also overruled. Heavy reliance is placed upon para 365 of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). 4.1 It is further submitted on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 21678/2020. 4.5 Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613 in support of his submissions that as held by this Court that the decision on question of law where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata. 4.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 171, it is submitted that as observed and held by this Court a judicial decision acts retrospectively. It is submitted that it is further observed that if a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, the later decision does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. It is submitted that it is further observed that to put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to the respective respondents if the matters are heard afresh on merits and the respective respondents/landowners will be heard on merits on all points. 5. All these review applications are opposed by Shri Shyam Divan, Sri V. Giri, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, Shri Vivek Chib, learned Senior Advocates and other counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 5.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respective respondents that the applicants have admittedly filed the instant review applications seeking review of the orders passed by this Court based on a subsequent decision. It is submitted that change in law in view of the subsequent decision of the Court cannot be a ground for review. It is submitted that even if the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) has overruled the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the settled position inter parties may not be affected. 5.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise the judgment in Indore Development Authority (supra) may be construed to be pros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uling of the principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision inter-parties. It is urged that therefore para 365 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) does not aid the review petitioners. 5.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents that even otherwise none of the conditions enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules are satisfied. That the review petitions are filed under Article 137 of the Constitution r/w Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules. That Article 137 states that "subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145", this Court shall have power to review its decision. It is submitted that Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules states that "no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. That Order 47 Rule 1 CPC states that a review petition may be preferred on the following grounds, (a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent cases. 5.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the review applications. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in all these cases, the respective Civil Appeals have been dismissed/disposed of, confirming the orders passed by the respective High Courts, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). However, it is required to be noted that in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 1 SCC 733, correctness of the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was doubted. The matter was placed before the three Judge Bench. By a majority decision, the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was held to be per incuriam. While holding so and overruling the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra) and other decisions following the said decision to the extent they were in conflict with the three Judge Bench decision, this Court also observed that the decisions rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are open to be reviewed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, more particularly, in view of the observations made in para 217 in the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra) and the observations made in para 365 in the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), reproduced hereinabove. 7. It is also required to be noted that in similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court had condoned the delay and reviewed/recalled the similar order in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was relied upon. It may be true that in some cases, the review applications have been dismissed. However, considering the orders passed in rejecting review applications, it appears that attention of the Court to paras 365 and 366 of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) and para 217 of the earlier decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra) were not brought to the notice of the Court. 8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respective respondents that the case does not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 735/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11857/2016, which stands disposed of. NAGARATHNA, J. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment proposed by His Lordship M.R. Shah, J. in these review petitions. However, I am unable to agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusions arrived at by him. 2. In these batch of cases, the issue revolves around in my view the very maintainability of these review petitions both on the ground of delay and on a consideration of Article 137 of the Constitution of India as well as Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (for short, "S.C. Rules - 2013") and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short). The aforesaid provisions are respectively extracted as under for immediate reference: "Article 137 of the Constitution of India: '137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court. -Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.' ****** Order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013: 'Order X....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('L.A. Act, 2013' for the sake of convenience). L.A. Act, 2013 came into effect from 01.01.2014. Section 24 with particular reference to Section 24 (2) of L.A. Act, 2013, is relevant for the purpose of these review petitions. The said provision reads as under: "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an awar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....controversy which were referred to a Larger Bench and ultimately, in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, a five-Judge Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, which, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following questions for consideration: "4.1. (1) What is the meaning of the expression "paid"/"tender" in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act") and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the 1894 Act")? Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act results into lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. What are the consequences of non-deposit in court especially when compensation has been tendered and refused under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? Whether such persons after refusal can take advantage of their wrong/conduct? 4.1. (2) Whether the word "or" should be read as conjunctive or disjunctive in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? 4.1. (3) What is the true effect of the proviso, does it form part of sub-section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether "or" has to be read as "nor" or as "and" was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment." 10. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment passed in Indore Development Authority by the Five-Judge Bench and having regard to the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following Pune Municipal Corporation have now been overruled, the review petitioners, who are either the acquiring body/State or the beneficiary have preferred these review petitions. 11. The object and purpose of filing these review petitions is to seek review of the judgment impugned in the review petitions and for rehearing of the Special Leave Petitions or the Civil Appeals, as the case may be, which were disposed of in terms of Pune Municipal Corporation, in light of the latest pronouncement of this Court in Indore Development Authority. 12. According to Sri Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, on an interpretation of para 365 of Indore Development Authority, it is clear that not on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Authority by overruling the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. However, the judgment themselves do not get effaced and they are binding on the parties to the said cases although they can no longer be cited as a precedent. Heavy reliance has been placed on the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to contend that when a decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the superior Court, it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. Thus, the contention on behalf of the respondents is that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following the aforesaid judgment, having been overruled, would cease to be a precedent for future cases. It is submitted that merely because the Larger Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority has laid down the new law by a different interpretation being given to Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of L.A. Act, 2013, it cannot give rise to a review of the judgment passed in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following Pune Municipal Corporation. 16. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submitted that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regard, learned counsel for the review petitioners placed reliance on The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661. 19. Having regard to the rival submissions made, I find that the bone of contention between the parties is with regard to the maintainability of these review petitions bearing in mind the scope and purport of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and particularly, the Explanation thereto. In other words, the point for consideration is, whether, the judgment passed in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following the said dictum, which have been overruled, could be reviewed by entertaining these review petitions and the said orders be recalled and the said cases be reheard and decided in light of Indore Development Authority. 20. At the outset, it is observed that this is not a case where the question involved is, whether, the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation calls for a review or reconsideration. It has already been reconsidered by this Court, by the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority. The pertinent question involved in this case is, whether, the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation having been overruled and all othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "'Decision' is not necessarily synonymous with 'opinion'. A decision of the court is its judgment; the opinion is the reasons given for that judgment, or the expression of the views of the Judge." 24. This Court while considering the difference between the two expressions, namely, "decision" and "opinion" or view of law stated that, "it is necessary to bear in mind that the principles in regard to the highest Court departing from its binding precedent are different from the grounds on which a final judgment between the parties can be reconsidered." 25. When a review application is filed by an aggrieved party, the same can be dismissed ex parte without issuing notice to the other side on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to call upon the opposite party to show cause as to why review should not be granted. If notice is issued to the other side, then, after hearing both sides, it is necessary to consider whether the review petition ought to be allowed or rejected. It is at that stage the maintainability of the review petition would also have to be considered such as if there is a bar to the very maintainability of the review petition having regard to the scope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reason, may seek review of a judgment or order of this Court. 28. Thus, it is noted that any person considering himself aggrieved can seek review of the judgment or order only on the aforesaid three grounds and none other. In the instance case, according to petitioners' counsel, the first and second grounds for review do not apply. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the third ground. The third ground is "on account of any other sufficient reason". The said expression may mean that the reason must be sufficient to the Court to which the application for review is made. 29. In the present batch of cases, serious arguments have been advanced on both sides on, what I consider, the maintainability of these review petitions revolving around the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Hence, in my view, the recalling of the judgments passed following the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, which is no doubt, overruled, will have to be reconsidered in light of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 30. On a consideration of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is noted that there are three main grounds referred to above on which a review of a decree or order could be sought by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority is not a ground for review and recall of the very decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars the review petition being entertained in the instant cases. Hence, in these cases, the review petitions may have to be rejected/dismissed. 34. The expression "any other sufficient reason" which is a ground for review and which is the sheet anchor of the petitioner's review petition has not been defined in the Code. However, the judgments of the (i) Privy Council in Chajju Ram vs. Neki AIR 1922 P.C. 112; Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi vs. Parath Nath AIR 1934 P.C. 213; (ii) Federal Court in Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter AIR 1949 FC 106, and, (iii) This Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Paulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 have held that words must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the Rule". 35. In Chajju Ram vs. Neki (supra), the Privy Council held that there cannot be a review on the ground that the judgment proceeded on an incorrect exposition of law. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y other sufficient reason". This would mean that if, in the mind of a Court there is a sufficient reason for the review of a judgment, it cannot be on the ground/reason covered in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the circumstances mentioned in the Explanation would be an exception and is outside the scope and ambit of "for any other sufficient reason". 38. An Explanation is at times appended to a Section to explain the object and content as well as the meaning of words contained in the Section. An Explanation may be added to include something within or to exclude something from the ambit of the main enactment or the connotation of some words occurring in it. Even a negative Explanation which excludes certain types or a category from the ambit of the Section may have the effect of showing that the category leaving aside the excepted types is included within it. An Explanation can also be added to serve as a proviso to the main Section vide Y.P. Chawla and Others vs. M.P. Tiwari and another AIR 1992 SC 1360. When an Explanation is in the nature of a proviso, it is used to remove special cases from the general provision and provide for them especially. Sometimes an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments sought to be reviewed. 42. However, in taxation matters, the position is slightly different. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1, it was observed that overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question. That in our judicial system, it is open to a Court of superior jurisdiction or strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited to act as an authority to overrule such a decision. But this overruling would not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to an earlier lis. In that lis, the principle of res judicata would continue to operate. But in tax cases relating to a subsequent year involving the same issue as an earlier year, the Court can differ from the view expressed if the case is distinguishable or per incuriam. 43. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments in their arguments as well as reply arguments: (a) Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (supra) was a question related to jurisdiction of a Court which cannot be deemed to have been finally determin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioners. The same would be contrary to the Explanation in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. (b) Similarly, reliance was placed on Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (supra). A judgment which was pronounced earlier by a superior Court and holding the field, was not noticed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, subsequently, while deciding a matter. Hence, it was observed that there was a mistake apparent from the record as there was non-consideration of a binding decision of superior Court by the said Tribunal. Hence, the same could be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The above decision is also not applicable in the instant case for the reason that when Pune Municipal Corporation was decided there was no judgment of Indore Development Authority. The decision of the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority is not prior to but subsequent to the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. The judgment and decision in Pune Municipal Corporation dated 08.02.2018 held the field till the judgment in Indore Development Authority which was pronounced on 06.03.2020. Therefore, the judgment in Indore Developm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree obtained earlier in the first suit which was not found to be a lawful decree as per the law prevailing at the time when the second suit was considered. The aforesaid decision does not apply to the present case as herein, review petitions have been filed seeking review of the judgments passed by this Court on the basis of the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation which has been subsequently overruled by this Court in Indore Development Authority on a pure question of law and the review petitions are hit by the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. This is not a case where a subsequent fresh petition has been filed before the High Court seeking reliefs based on the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation. It is necessary to emphasise that these review petitions have been filed before this Court to review the judgments/orders passed by this Court on the basis of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation which has been overruled by a subsequent judgment in Indore Development Authority. In my view, these review petitions are not maintainable in view of the bar contained in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. (d) Learned senior counsel for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a situation covered by the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which, as already observed, is an exception to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does not apply to the instance cases. 44. The aforesaid cases turn on their own facts and do not fall within the scope of exception which is in the nature of an Explanation. The aforesaid judgments cannot be a precedent in the instant case where the review petition has been filed in order to set at naught the impugned orders following the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation passed by this Court which held the field till it was subsequently overruled in Indore Development Authority. Having regard to the Explanation provided in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC review in these cases is impermissible. 45. A few judgments of this Court could be referred to at this stage in support of the view that I wish to take in this case: a) In Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78, it has been observed that one of the parameters prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for allowing the review petition for rehearing the case is "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other suff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....open the case and rehear the entire matter but while doing so the Court must remain conscious of the provisions contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC as well as the Rules framed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the expression "for any other sufficient reason" has been intentionally used in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC by the Legislature to cater to possible exceptional cases in which injustice may have been meted out. 46. The following relevant judgments could also be discussed at this stage: (a) Reliance could be placed on State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) (2013) 3 SCC 1, wherein following several earlier decisions of this Court, it was observed that a decision does not lose its authority "merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned." (b) In fact, in Madan Mohan Pathak & Anr. vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 803; (1978) 2 SCC 50, a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question whether Parliament enacting an Act consequent upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court would unsettle the binding effect of the said judgment. In that case, the appeal filed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parties in other cases to comply with the directions issued prior to the judgment in Uma Devi's case. (d) Reference can also be made to Union of India vs. Major S.P. Sharma (2014) 6 SCC 351, in which it was stated that "a decision rendered by a competent Court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason that if it is permitted to do so there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of the proceeding would cease to have any meaning". It was further observed that it is not permissible in law for the parties to reopen concluded judgments of the Court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have a far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice. (e) When reconsideration of a judgment of this Court is sought, there are two limitations which have been observed - one jurisdictional and the other self-imposed. The same has been explained in Natural Resources Allocation, in Re: Special reference no. 1 of 2012, speaking through D.K. Jain, J., as under: "The first limitation is that a decision of this Court could be reviewed only under Article 137 or a curative petition and in no ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of review of an earlier judgment, was considered as there was a divergence of opinion among the High Courts on the said question. It was observed that in view of there being a dichotomy of opinion on the issue, the Law Commission took cognizance of the same and suggested an amendment to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which led to the insertion of the Explanation after Order XLVII Rule 2 CPC. The following cases were referred to in the aforesaid judgment: (i) Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter 1949 FCR 36, a Five-Judge Bench decision of the Federal Court was alluded to, wherein it was observed that if a decision is erroneous in law, the same is certainly no ground for ordering review. Moreover, if the case had been decided erroneously, the error could not be construed as being one apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Reliance was also placed on Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 and it was observed that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....922 P.C 112 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholics vs. Most Rev. Mar Paulose Athanasius (supra) wherein the words "any other sufficient reason appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC" was defined to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the Rule." In making reference to these cases, the Three-Judge Bench reiterated that an essential principle for exercising review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is that the review will be maintainable for "any other sufficient reason", and has narrowed the scope of this ground to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule. (i) In the aforesaid case Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 has also been adverted to wherein this Court delineated on some of the grounds as to when the review will not be maintainable as under: - "(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications, (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import, (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, (iv) Review is not maintainable unless th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pune Municipal Corporation, Writ Petitions have been disposed of and the said decisions passed in the said writ petitions or intra court appeals, as the case may be, may have attained finality and binding on the parties thereto. If these review petitions are allowed and are held to be maintainable there would be hundreds of review petitions which would be filed seeking review of the decisions passed by various High Courts in writ petitions following the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. This would open a Pandora's Box and upset the binding nature of the decisions between the parties and be contrary to the doctrine of finality in litigation. 50. In Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (supra), a majority of two Hon'ble Judges in paragraph 217 while opining that, the judgment rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation and other decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation are per incuriam observed that the "decisions rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation are open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of this decision". However, the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority did not observe the above, either in paragraph 365 of the judgment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the Civil Appeals / Special Leave Petitions on merits, the Orders passed recalling the decision passed earlier would call for reconsideration. All judgments and orders which have been recalled till date subsequent to the judgment in Indore Development Authority on the basis that Pune Municipal Corporation was incorrectly decided are also not in accordance with law in view of the discussion made above. 52. Having held that the judgments/orders sought to be reviewed by the petitioners is impermissible in law, the ground realities would also have to be now taken into consideration on account of the passage of time. It is noted that Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013 is in the nature of a saving clause which is evident on a reading of the same, including the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013. The object is to save the acquisition as far as possible. Possibly taking a cue from the proviso, this Court in the impugned judgments reserved liberty to the petitioners herein to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh within one year in some of the cases failing which the land was to be returned to the land owners if in possession of the review petitioners he....