1968 (7) TMI 86 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of a judicial decision based on a subsequent binding authority taking a different view of the law.

Analysis:
The judgment by P. T. Raman Nayar, J., discusses the grounds for reviewing a judicial decision based on a subsequent binding authority that presents a different interpretation of the law. The judge emphasizes that a subsequent binding authority, which differs from the original decision, can be considered a valid reason for review. The judge cites the importance of discovering new and significant matters or errors apparent on the face of the record as per Order XLVII of the Code. The judgment highlights that the phrase "error apparent on the face of the record" encompasses both factual and legal errors, as established by legal precedents such as the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

The judgment further explains that the timing of the binding authority demonstrating the error, whether before or after the original decision, does not affect the review process. The judge clarifies that judicial decisions only interpret the law and do not create or modify it. Therefore, a subsequent authoritative judicial decision altering the interpretation of the law holds significant weight in the review process. The judgment draws parallels between a binding judicial authority and a statute, emphasizing that the law remains constant despite changes in judicial interpretations.

Moreover, the judgment references legal precedents, such as the case of Venkatachalalam, I.T.O. v. Bombay D. & M. Co. Ltd., to support the argument that a subsequent binding decision declaring an earlier decision as erroneous is a valid ground for review. The judge highlights that the purpose of a review based on a subsequent binding authority is not to alter a decree that was correctly made initially but to rectify errors in legal interpretation. The judgment concludes by allowing the application for review and ordering a rehearing of the case without imposing any costs.

In summary, the judgment underscores the significance of a subsequent binding authority in reviewing judicial decisions, clarifies the scope of "error apparent on the face of the record," and establishes the legal basis for reconsidering decisions based on changed legal interpretations.