LexNORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (INDIA) LTD. versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
650 A r.NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (INDIA) LTD. v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI December 21, 1979 8 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J c D Review of judgments of the Court-When undertaken. HELD: (per Tulzapurkar and Pathak, JJ.) (Krishna- Iyer J. concurring) It is weJl-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment/ deliver'ed by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when cir- cumstances of a substantial a·nd compelling character rnake1 it necessary to do so. If the ·attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing the Court will review its judgm~nt. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong ha~ been Jone and it is necessaiy to pass an order to do full and effective justice. [656H] Saijan Singh v. State of Raiasthnn [1965] I S.C.R. 933, 948; G. L. Gttpta v. D. N. Mehta [1971] 3 S.C.R. 748, 760; 0. N. Mahindroo v. Distt. Judge Delhi & Anr. [1971] 2 S.C.R. 11, 27 referred to. Po,ver to review1 its judgment has b'een conferred on tl1e Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution read with the provision3 of a law made by E Parliament or the rules mad'e under Article 145. In 21 civil proceeding an appli- cation for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in O. XL VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure a.n.d in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparrent on the face of the record (Order XL r. 1, Supren1e Court Rul'es 1966). Whatever be the nature of the proceedings a review proceeding cannot be equated with the1 original hearing of a case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be, reconsidered except "where a glaring P omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.'' [657C-DJ G H Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, [1975] 3 SCR 933 referred to. Apart from the fact that the material placed before the Court in the review petition was never brought to its notice when the appeals w~re heard, the judg- ment does not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy could be said to admit of only: one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold tha·t there· is an error apparent on the face of the record. [657E-F] In the instant case the appellant prepared and served food both to residents in its hotel as well as to the casual customers who came to eat in the restaurant In both cam it remained a supply and servke of food not amounting to a sale. The facts alleged by the appellant were never disputed at any stage. No attempt / NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS v. LT. GOVERNOR (Krishna Iyer,}.) 651 was made by the taxing authorites to enquire into the truth of the facts so occepted. It \Vas in that factual conte:Xt that this Court examined the question whether any liability to sales tax was attracted. The earlier judgment rested on that factual foundation and must be understood in that light. [658H] Krishna Jy·cr, J. (concurring) A case is decided on its particular conspectus of fa:ts. When the fa:cts materially vary the l&'v selectively shifts its focus. The factual setting in which the decision in the judgment was founded becomes cdtical. Th·e appeal pro .. .._ ceeded on the admitted footing that the visitor to the rcst~urant who sat at the · table and was served the dishes he desired, had no right to carry home what h'e r .'-~anted. The basic assu1nption was that victuals as such were not sold and the l:Onsideration \Vas for the complex of activities which included eating and drink- ing. On these facts the conclusion arrived at was impecca·ble. [652G] .. If circumstances differ the decision too will be diff~rent. But no alternative situations were presented. If counsel defaults in the submission he cannot .find fault with the Court for the decision. [653A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos. 111-112 of 1978. (Application for Review of this Court's Judgment dated 7-9-1978) In the matter of :- Civil Appeal Nos. 1768-69 of 1972 . ' Soli J. SoralJjee, Addi. Sol.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.