M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETC versus THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 26-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 758 : 2024 INSC 145
M/S Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc. 
v. 
The Assam State Electricity Board and Others
(Miscellaneous Application (Civil) No. 2045 of 2022) 
IN 
(Curative Petition (Civil) Diary No. 23828 of 2020) 
IN 
(Review Petition (Civil) No.789 of 2019) 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No. 8450 of 2016)
26 February 2024
[Aniruddha Bose* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether registry has the power to dismiss a curative petition solely 
on the ground that no averment has been made to the effect that 
the review petition was dismissed by circulation.
Headnotes
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVIII r.2 (1) – Curative 
petition – Registry’s power to dismiss – Dismissal of review 
petition in open court after oral hearing and not by circulation 
– Curative petitions filed thereagainst – Order of the registrar 
declining registration of curative petitions on the ground that 
no averment made to the effect that the review petition was 
dismissed by circulation – Legality:
Held: Instant matter ought to be decided by a Bench of this Court 
and not by the Registry – Registry cannot be vested with power 
to decide whether a review petition, after being dismissed in open 
Court hearing, merited relook through the curative jurisdiction – 
That would be a judicial exercise – A curative petition arising from 
an order dismissing a review petition upon hearing in open Court 
must contain a plea or prayer seeking excuse from compliance of 
making averment as contained in Ord. XLVIII r. 2(1) – Proper course 
for the Registry on receiving such a petition with a prayer to be 
excused from the above requirement would be to obtain instructions 
from the Judge in chambers and thereafter communicate such 
instructions to the parties – r. 2, second part, provides that the 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
759
M/S Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc.  
v. The Assam State Electricity Board and Others
Registrar herself can direct the applicant to serve the other party 
with a notice of motion returnable before the Court while she opines 
that it is desirable that the application should be dealt with in the 
open Court but would not apply where the applicant approaches 
this Court after the review petition is dismissed in open court 
hearing – In cases where review plea is dismissed by circulation, 
the curative petition has to be circulated first to a Bench of three 
senior-most Judges of this Court and the Judges who passed 
the judgment complained of, if available – Thereafter, the course 
prescribed in sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) of r. 4 of Ord. XLVIII 
would be followed as may be applicable – In the instant appeal, 
said course not followed when the order was passed declining 
registration of the curative petition – Said order being contrary 
to the provisions of the Rules, thus, set aside, however, not a fit 
case to remand the matter to the Registrar as substantial time has 
lapsed – No case made out for invoking the curative jurisdiction 
to take relook into the case – Purpose would not be served in 
sending the matter back to the Chamber Judge for instructions in 
the given circumstances. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 23]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVIII – Curative petition 
– Limitation for filing:
Held: Curative jurisdiction being a special jurisdiction derived from 
inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court, the limitation prescribed 
for filing of review petition cannot be extended to apply in the cases 
of curative petition – Curative jurisdiction of this Court does not 
flow from its power to review, but this jurisdiction is derived from 
Arts 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India – Moreover, r. 3 of 
Order XLVIII specifically stipulates that curative petition has to be 
filed within reasonable time from the date of judgment or order 
passed in a review petition – No timeframe has been formulated 
in the 2013 Rules either for filing a curative petition. [Para 11]
Case Law Cited
Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra and Another, [2002] 
2 SCR 1006 : (2002) 4 SCC 388 – followed.
P.N. Eswara Iyer and Others vs Registrar, Supreme 
Court of India, [1980] 2 SCR 889 : (1980) 4 SCC 680; 
Rama Rao Poal vs Samaj Parivartana Samudaya, 
Curative Petition (Civil) D. No.35404/2015; Mohd. 
Arif vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India, [2014] 11 
760
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SCR 1009 : (2014) 9 SCC 737; Union of India & Ors. 
vs M/s. Union Carbide Corporation & Ors., Curative 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.