9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement of the State for review of judgment. 2. Adequate grounds for allowing the application for review. Entitlement of the State for review of judgment: The judgment in question was delivered on 1-1-1969, allowing a petition and directing a refund of a sum collected as license fee. The levy and collection of Tobacco tax under the Act had been declared illegal by the Supreme Court due to an implied repeal of the Tobacco Act by the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Subsequently, the Kerala State Legislature passed the Validation Act 9 of 1964 to validate the levy and collection of the tax. The Validation Act was challenged, and after various appeals and remands, a Division Bench of the Court sustained the validity of the Act on 15-10-1970. The State filed an application for review of the judgment on 18-8-1971, based on the fact that the Division Bench ruling that invalidated the Act had been set aside by the Supreme Court, and the legislation itself had been upheld by a later Division Bench ruling. The question arose whether the State was entitled to have the judgment reviewed and if there were adequate grounds to allow the application. Adequate grounds for allowing the application for review: The State invoked Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and the inherent powers of the Court for the review. The Court examined the applicability of Order 47, Rule 1 and the interpretation of "other sufficient cause" as grounds for review. It was noted that a subsequent binding decision does not necessarily constitute the discovery of a new and important matter or an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review. The Court referred to various legal precedents and held that a subsequent decision does not automatically warrant a review unless it existed at the time of the original judgment. The Court also analyzed the reasoning behind the application of inherent powers for review under Art.226 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds under Order 47, Rule 1 or inherent powers of the Court for the review of the judgment. The application for review was dismissed without costs due to the delay in filing the application and the lack of sufficient reasons for review. In conclusion, the Kerala High Court dismissed the application for review of the judgment, as the State failed to establish entitlement for review and did not present adequate grounds under Order 47, Rule 1 or the inherent powers of the Court. The Court emphasized the importance of demonstrating new and important matters or errors apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review, which was not met in this case.
|
