LexKHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED AND ANR. versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KHODA Y DISTILLERIES LIMITED AND ANR. v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DECEMBER 5, 1995 B [J.S. VERMA, K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 32, 136, 137--:Appeals decided by Supreme Court-Review C Petitions rejected-Subsequently Writ Petition filed to reconsider the judg- ment-fl e/d, decision of this Court after attaining finality cannot be reopened under Article 32. After the dismissal of the appeals and also the review petition by this court the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition for reconsideration of D the earlier decision of this Court. It was submitted by the petitioners that the appeals were decided on merits without being heard on merits as such violating the principle of natural justice. Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court E HELD: The correctness of a decision on merits after it has become F final cannot be challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision. The judgment in Antu/ay case does not hold that a decision of this court after attaining finality can be reopened under Article 32. Moreover in that case the writ petition under Article 32 challenging the decision of this Court was dismissed and it was only in an appeal filed subsequently the relief was granted. The decision in Antulay must be confined to its own peculiar facts and the reliance placed on the decision in Antulay on the fact of this case is misplaced. [193-A, F, 192-H] A.R. Antulay v. Union of India and Ors. etc., [1984] 3 SCR 482 G explained and distinguished; Krishnaswamy etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1992] 4 SCC 605 and MIS. Khody Distilleries Limited and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., [1995] 1 SCC 574, referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 803 of 1995. H (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 190 , , ~A Y DISTILLERIF.s LTD. v. R.G. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (i.S. VER.MA,J.( 191 G. Ramaswamy, Nagender Naidu, Nanjun Raddy, J.B. Dadachanji A and S. Sukumaran for the Petitioners. Ashok Desai, P.P. Rao, P. Mahale and E.G. Sridharan for the Respondent No. 2. S.B. Sanyal, Rangabatalachar and M. Veerappa for the Respondent B No 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.S. VERMA J. This writ petition is a sequel of Civil Appeal Nos. 4708-4712 of 1989, Mis. Kltoday Distil/e1ies Limited & Anr. v. State of C Kamataka · & Ors., and the connected matters which were dicided on 19.10.1994. That judgment is reported in [1995] 1 SCC 574. After that decision, Review Petition Nos. 507-511 of 1995 were filed. The order dated 25.4.1995 made in those review petitions is. as under : "One of the grounds taken for the prayer made to hear oral D 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 same could not be supple- mented before the Constitution Bench. Accordingly, we permit the filling of supplementary written submissions, if any, by the parties E mentioning therein and emphasising 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 he listed in Chambers thereafter." Aft.er the supplementary written submissions had been filed by the parties, the review petitions were rejected by order dated 8.8.1995 as under: F "We have perused the grounds on which a review of the order is sought. We had by our order dated 25th April, 1995 permitted G the filing of supplementary written submission by the parties and had stated that should clearly emphasise the additional submis- sions, if any, on which reliance is sought to be placed. We had also stated that the prayer for hearing oral arguments would then be considered. Pursuant to the said order the written submissions H A B 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. have been filed and we have perused the same. Having perused the same we find that the submissions made therein have all been answered in the judgment sought to be reviewed. We have not noticed any submission on which we would like to hear oral arguments by counsel. Since we do not find and merit in the additional supplementary submissions filed in these proceedings we do not entertain the Revi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.