2010 (4) TMI 361 - SC - Central Excise

Appeal- Litigation between PSU and Gov. and between Central Govt. and State Govt. and their companies- Reference to larger bench of Supreme Court for reconsideration. Dispute involving Public Sector Undertaking. Clearance from Committee on Dispute for filing appeal in respect of disputes involving public sector undertaking. Clearance from Committee of Disputes for filing appeal in respect of disputes involving PSUs. Working of COD has failed. Numerous views expressed by COD as per letter of Cabinet Secretary. Different views expressed by COD in several matters resulting in delay in filing and also in further litigation. Time has come to revisit orders passed in Oil and Natural Gas Commission- supreme court held on requirement of NOC from COD in respect of dispute between Central and State Government, also need to be revisited. Judgments requiring reconsideration. Registry directed to place matters before Chief Justice for direction as judgment in ONGC case delivered by three judges bench.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of previous court orders regarding the establishment and functioning of a Committee to monitor disputes between government ministries and public sector undertakings.
2. Assessment of the effectiveness of the Committee on Disputes (COD) in resolving disputes and preventing unnecessary litigation.
3. Revisiting the requirement of obtaining clearance from the COD before initiating legal proceedings.
4. Reviewing the necessity of obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the COD for controversies between Central and State Governments and their companies.
5. Consideration of the need to reconsider previous judgments delivered by three-judge benches of the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment delves into the interpretation of past court orders related to the establishment of a Committee to oversee disputes between government entities and public sector undertakings. The Court references a previous order from 1991 and a subsequent clarification in 1994, emphasizing the importance of seeking clearance from the Committee before proceeding with litigation. The Court acknowledges the necessity of monitoring disputes to prevent unnecessary legal battles and ensure a systematic approach to conflict resolution.

2. The Court observes that the functioning of the Committee on Disputes (COD) has encountered various challenges, leading to delays in legal proceedings and contradictory opinions within the Committee. Citing a letter from the Cabinet Secretary highlighting the difficulties faced by the COD, the Court recognizes the shortcomings in the current system. The Court notes that these issues have not only caused delays but have also contributed to additional litigation, underscoring the need for a more efficient dispute resolution mechanism.

3. The judgment addresses the submission made by the learned Attorney General, advocating for a reassessment of the previous court orders concerning the requirement of obtaining clearance from the COD before initiating legal actions. The Court agrees with the Attorney General's stance, indicating that it may be time to reconsider the necessity of seeking clearance from the Committee. The Court acknowledges the evolving nature of legal processes and the need to adapt mechanisms to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in resolving disputes.

4. The Court highlights a specific order from a previous case involving controversies between Central and State Governments and their respective companies. In this context, the Court mentions the requirement of obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the COD for such disputes. The Court suggests that even in these scenarios, the necessity of seeking clearance from the Committee should be revisited, hinting at a broader reassessment of the current legal framework governing dispute resolution mechanisms.

5. The judgment concludes by expressing the Court's view that previous judgments delivered by three-judge benches of the Supreme Court need reconsideration. Despite acknowledging the need for a review, the Court notes its inability to unilaterally revisit these judgments due to their previous authoritative nature. Consequently, the Court directs the Registry to present the matters before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate guidance and directions, signaling a potential reevaluation of established legal precedents.

← Previous Next →