9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 232 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of review petition - doctrine of merger - Whether review petition is maintainable before the High Court seeking review of a judgment against which the special leave petition has already been dismissed by this Court? - Held that - Explaining the doctrine of merger, the Court held that logic behind this doctrine is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior Court, Tribunal or Authority is subjected to a remedy available under law before a superior forum, then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless, this finality is to put in jeopardy. Once the superior court disposes of the dispute before it in any manner, i.e. either by affirming the decree or order or by settings aside or by modifying the same, it is the decree of the superior Court, Tribunal or Authority which is the final binding and operative decree and the decree or order of the lower Court, Tribunal or authority gets merged into the order passed by the superior forum. Having noted the two judgments of ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM ANR. VERSUS K. SANTHAKUMARAN ORS. 1998 (9) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and KUNHAYAMMED AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER 2000 (7) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT , and particularly the fact that the earlier judgment in the case of Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm is duly taken cognisance of and explained in the latter judgment, we are of the view that there is no conflict insofar as ratio of the two cases is concerned. Moreover, Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm was decided on its peculiar facts, with no discussion on any principle of law, whereas Kunhayammed is an elaborate discourse based on well accepted propositions of law which are applicable for such an issue - thus, the detailed judgment in Kunhayammed lays down the correct law and there is no need to refer the cases to larger Bench, as was contended by the counsel for the appellant. Once we hold that law laid down in Kunhayammed is to be followed, it will not make any difference whether the review petition was filed before the filing of special leave petition or was filed after the dismissal of special leave petition. The review petition was maintainable. Therefore, the High Court was empowered to entertain the same on merits. Insofar as appeal of the appellant challenging the order dated December 12, 2012 on merits is concerned, the matter shall be placed before the regular Board to decide the same.
Issues Involved:
1. Question of Law: Whether a review petition is maintainable before the High Court seeking review of a judgment against which the special leave petition has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 2. Doctrine of Merger: Applicability of the doctrine of merger and res judicata in the context of special leave petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court. 3. Conflicting Judgments: Analysis of conflicting judgments by different Benches of the Supreme Court on the maintainability of review petitions after dismissal of special leave petitions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Question of Law: The primary question of law examined in these appeals is whether a review petition is maintainable before the High Court when the Supreme Court has already dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) against the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court noted that the dismissal of an SLP in limine without a speaking order does not amount to the merger of the High Court’s judgment with that of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the review petition should be considered on its merits by the High Court. 2. Doctrine of Merger: The Court discussed the doctrine of merger in detail, explaining that it implies that there cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at a given point in time. When a decree or order is challenged before a superior forum, and the superior forum disposes of the dispute, the decree or order of the inferior court merges into the order passed by the superior forum. However, this doctrine is not of universal application and depends on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject matter of the challenge. The Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, which confers discretionary power on the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal, is distinct from its appellate jurisdiction. The dismissal of an SLP in limine without a speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger, and the High Court retains the jurisdiction to entertain a review petition. 3. Conflicting Judgments: The Court addressed conflicting judgments on the maintainability of review petitions after the dismissal of SLPs. The key judgments discussed include: - Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran: Held that no review petition is maintainable after the dismissal of an SLP, emphasizing judicial discipline. - Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala: Provided a detailed analysis of the doctrine of merger, stating that the dismissal of an SLP in limine does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a review petition. The Court also noted other judgments such as Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy and Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer, which had conflicting views on the maintainability of review petitions. Conclusion: After analyzing the judgments, the Supreme Court concluded that the law laid down in Kunhayammed is the correct legal position. The dismissal of an SLP in limine without a speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger, and the High Court retains the jurisdiction to entertain a review petition. The Court affirmed the conclusions in Kunhayammed and reiterated that: - An order refusing special leave to appeal, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger. - Once leave to appeal is granted, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked, and the doctrine of merger applies. - The High Court loses jurisdiction to entertain a review petition once an appeal is preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal is converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court. Application to the Appeals: - Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 490 of 2012: The review petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is maintainable as the SLP was dismissed in limine without reasons. The matter is remanded back to the High Court for deciding the review petition on merits. - Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13792 of 2013: The review petition was maintainable as the SLP was dismissed in limine without a speaking order. The High Court was empowered to entertain the review petition on merits. The appeal challenging the High Court's order on merits will be placed before the regular Board for a decision.
|
