BAYER (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 06-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
BAYER (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASI-JTRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 6, 1991 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., M.H. KANIA AND 
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
---f 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136--Special Leave Petition by 
c 
D 
appellants, aggrieved by High Court judgment, not a party in writ 
petition-Liberty given to file review in High Court. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder XLVII-Review-Party 
affected by High Court-Judgment though not party in the writ 
petition-Whether can file Review Petition in High Court. 
A writ petition was tiled in the High Court challenging the 
communication of Respondent No. 2-Corporation, directing that no 
development be made in the disputed land, and no building construc-
tion permitted within a certain distance from the chemical factories in 
view of the representations of the owners of the factories. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition and struck down the 
·~ , E 
aforesaid communication • 
• 
Being aggrieved and adversely affected by the judgment, some of 
the owners of the chemical factories, even though they were not parties 
in the writ petition, filed a special leave petition. 
F 
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (1) Appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the 
judgment, even if they are not regarded as necessary parties in the writ 
petition. [251G-252A] 
G 
(2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to set 
aside the judgment of the High Court at the instance of the appellants. 
They are, given liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. 
~.....; 
The review petition, if tiled, shall be entertained by the High Court and 
the appellants given a hearing as if the matters were heard afresh as far 
as they are concerned. It is clarified that the review application will not 
H 
be confined to the normal grounds on which a review can be sought but 
250 
' 
BAYER (I) LTD. 1'. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [KANIA, J.] 
251 
~c 
the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between the appel-
A 
lants and the respondents. [252A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 578 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.1990 of the Bombay 
B 
High Court in W.P. No. 4497 of 1991. 
. Ashok Desai, N. Serwai, Dilip Udeshi, P.H. Parekh and J.P. 
Pathak for the Appellants. 
U.R. Lalit, K.K. Singhvi and Soli J. Sorabjee, A.M. Khanwil-
c 
kar, Ravinder Narain, S. Ganesh, D.N. Misra and S. Kachwaha, S.K. 
Dholakia and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
~ 
K.K. Venugopal, E.C. Agrawala, Ashwini Kumar, Ms. Purnima 
Sethi a.nd A. V. Pilli for the Applicant. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
/ 
KANIA, J. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the 
judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ 
Petition No. 4497 of 1990. The High Court allowed the said writ peti-
tion and struck down a communication from the Bombay Municipal 
E 
Corporation, respondent no. 2 herein, informing the petitioners in the 
said writ petition, who are arrayed as respondents nos. 3 to 13 before 
us, that their application for permission to develop the property, 
namely, the land in question situated at Village Balkum near Thane, 
,., 
was rejected in view of the representations submitted to the Govern-
ment by the owners of chemical factories situated in the said village, 
F 
.,. 
who are the appellants/petitioners herein that no building construction 
permission should be granted within a certain distance from the said 
factories. The petitioners in the Special Leave J>etition are some of the 
said chemical factories. They were not joined in the writ petition as 
respondents and have prayed for leave to file the Special Leave Peti-
tion on the ground that the judgment adversely affects them and they 
G 
are aggrieved by the same. 
' 
Permission is granted. Leave is granted. Counsel heard. 
We find that appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the 
impugned judgment, even if they are not regarded as necessary parties 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] 1 S.C.R. 
in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find 
that there is no need to set aside the impugned judgment of the 
Bombay High Court at the instance of the appellants. The appellants 
are, however, given liberty to file a review petition before the Bombay 
High Court for reviewing the impugned judgment, within a period of 
four weeks from today. In our opinion, it is proper that the entire 
controversy
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.