9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uing the show cause notice, proposing to review the order of the Assistant Collector is concerned in view of the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Military Dairy Farm. Accordingly, we allow the stay petition unconditionally. 3. Having regard to the very high stakes involved, we also order the case be listed for early hearing and we fix the case for hearing on 13th April 1992. No other case should be fixed on the day, excepting short matters." 2. The respondent being not satisfied with the stay order had filed a Miscellaneous application for modification of the Stay Order No. 24/92-A, dated 29-1-1992 in the Registry on the 7th day of April 1992 which is registered as Miscellaneous E. 574/92-A. A perusal of the operative part of the stay order No. 24/92-A dated 29-1-1992 which has been reproduced above, shows that the stay was granted unconditionally and the Bench had ordered the listing of the hearing of the appeal on merits on 13-4-1992. On 13-4-1992 when the hearing of the appeal came up for hearing on merits, the Miscellaneous application filed by the respondent (Revenue) on the 7th day of April 1992 was taken up for hearing. A Bench consisting of Shri P.C. Jain, Member (Tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on Miscellaneous Application heard on 13-4-1992. It would be taken care of in the final order. No reply to the CDR is called for. M (J)-Ms. S.V. Maruthi may also please see. P.C. Jain, Sd./- 11-6-1992 M (J-SVM) May we discuss S.V. Maruthi, Sd./- 16-6-1992. Thereafter there were hearings on merits on 24th June, 1992, 25th June, 1992 and 26th June, 1992 at 2.00 PM. For the proper appreciation of the facts, the order sheet notings dated 24th June, 25th June and 26th June, 1992 are reproduced below :- Shri V. Sridharran, learned advocate is on his - 24-6-1992 25-6-1992 legs. c.f. = Sd/- P.C. Jain, 24-6-1992 Sd/- S.V. Maruthi, 24-6-1992 Shri V. Sridharran, learned advocate is continuing - 25-6-1992 with ish arguments. Part-heard. c.f. = 26-6-1992 Sd/- P.C. Jain, 25-6-1992 Sd/- S.V. Maruthi, 25-6-1992 Shri V. Sridharran, learned has completed his - 26-6-1992 Mrs. Vijay Zutshi has just commenced her arguments. arguments. Part-heard. c.f. = 24, 26 and 27-8-1992 (at 2.00 PM) Sd/- P.C. Jain, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, there was a prayer for rehearing of the Miscellaneous application for modification of the stay order No. 24/92-A dated 29-1-1992. On 27-1-1993 the matter had came up for hearing and when the Bench was about to proceed with the matter, the learned CDR had drew the attention to the Miscellaneous application No. 55/93 presented in the Registry on 20-1-1993. When Shri Sridharan stated that they were not aware of the fresh Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue and that he has to prepare for himself for the hearing of the Miscellaneous application, Smt. Vijay Zutshi, the learned CDR did not object for adjournment and the Bench had adjourned the matter to 29-3-1993 most reluctantly. When the matter was again called for hearing on 29-3-1993, Smt. Vijay Zutshi the learned CDR had appeared for the Revenue and Shri V. Sridharan, the learned advocate, for the appellants. Shri Sridharan wanted adjournment on the ground that he was not having a copy of the Miscellaneous application. A copy of the Miscellaneous application was given by Smt. Zutshi in open Court. The Bench pointed out that the Miscellaneous application was not supported with an affidavit and directed to make good th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-4-1992. If in the opinion of the Tribunal a detailed order is required to be made, it shall proceed accordingly and if it decides not to pass any separate order in view of its order sheet dated 11-6-1992, it may proceed to decide the appeal itself expeditiously and in accordance with law. To this extent our judgment and order dated 19-7-1993 stands modified . A perusal of the order dated 25-8-1993 shows that the Hon ble Allahabad High Court had modified its order dated 19-7-1993. The Hon ble High Court had left it to the discretion of the Tribunal whether any further orders are required to be made on the application dated 7-4-1992 for the modification of the stay order. The Hon ble High Court had further observed that if in the opinion of the Tribunal a detailed order is required to be made, it shall proceed accordingly and if it decides not to pass any separate order in view of its order sheet dated 11-6-1992, it may proceed with the hearing of the appeal expeditiously and in accordance with law. The Bench after looking into the same felt that judicial propriety requires that both the sides should address the arguments on the subject as to whether the order dated 13-4-1992 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd has no relevance in this case as in that case the hearing was reopened. He also drew the attention of the Bench to the provision of Section 35C(4) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Sridharan cited the following decisions :- (1) Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others reported in AIR 1977 S.C. 567, paras 19 and 24. (2) Gopal Paper and Board Mills v. UOI and Others reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 97 (Del.), paras 15 and 16. (3) Kifayatullah v. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bhopal reported in AIR 1956 Bhopal 7, para 6. Shri Sridharan referred to Order XX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which relates to the judgment/order. Shri Sridharan argued that the Revenue s application dated 7-4-1992 has been duly disposed of by the Tribunal and there is no necessity to rehear the same and a detailed order was not necessary. He pleaded for the rejection of the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue. 6. Smt. Vijay Zutshi, the learned CDR, addressed arguments in rejoinder and pleaded that no detailed order was passed on 13-4-1992 and there is no service of any detailed order and as such no ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. S.V. Maruthi, 13-4-1992" Sd/- The note sheet entry of the Registry dated 10-6-1992 and the notes of the Members are reproduced below :- The above matter alongwith a Misc. application filed by the Department (placed at flag `A ) was heard on 13-4-1992 and the orders passed by the Bench on the order sheet of that date are placed at flag `B . A Misc. application as now filed by the CDR regarding issue 2. of order is placed at flag `PUC for kind perusal and orders of Shri P.C. Jain, M (T) please". Asst. Registrar 10-6-1992. Sd/- Shri P.C. Jain M (Tech.) There is no need for separate orders on Miscellaneous application heard on 13-4-1992. It would be taken care of in the final order. No reply to the CDR is called for. M (J) - Ms. S.V. Maruthi may also please see. 11-6-1992. P.C. Jain Sd/- M (J-SVM) May we discuss S.V. Maruthi 16-6-1992" Sd/- A perusal of the both the order sheet and note sheet shows that both have to be read together and cannot be read in isolation. The narration of the facts also shows that after 16-6-1992 there had been hearing on 24, 25 and 26-6-1992. The learned advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by his predecessor. 3. [Section 202] The judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by Section 152 or on review". Order XX Rule 1, 2 and 3 deal with the judgment when pronounced and power to pronounce judgment written by predecessor and 3 relates to the signing of the judgments. The learned CDR has placed heavy reliance in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal). Relevant extracts (Paras 16 to 26) from the judgment is reproduced below :- ***** This judgment was pronounced in the open Court and thereafter the hearing was reopened and a fresh order was passed. The learned CDR had referred to a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute and Others reported in AIR 1986 S.C. 2105 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court in para 14 had held as under : 14. It is a cardinal principle of rule of law which governs our policy that the Court including Writ Court is required to record reasons while disposing of a writ petition in order to enab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -judicial; it could be made only on a consideration of the charges and the explanation given by the appellants. That necessarily implied that the District Magistrate had to give some reasons why he held the charges proved, and the explanation unacceptable. When the matter was carried in appeal, the State Government could atleast have acted with some awareness that citizens have rights which must be protected against possible arbitrary action by subordinate officials. The District Magistrate is not made the final authority in cancelling the licence. The appellants had a right to carry on their business and as they held a licence to carry on their business they could be deprived of their right by an executive order supported by good and adequate reasons. The relevant rules granted a right of appeal to the State Government against that order, and that implied that the aggrieved party must have an opportunity to convince the State Government that the order passed by the District Magistrate was erroneous. That right could be effectively exercised if reasons be recorded by the District Magistrate and supplied to the aggrieved party. If the aggrieved party is not supplied the reasons, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd conditions contained in the said letter (of Mr. Leslie). At the very outset it must be stated that a mere order in the order sheet recording that the case and suit be dismissed in terms of compromise is not the disposal of a suit under the Civil Procedure Code which can only terminate in accordance with the rules set forth in 0.20, R 1, which says : The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. It also requires that a decree shall be prepared and bear the date on which judgment was pronounced. The word decree to my mind, is often misunderstood. The order in the decree might give some relief to the plaintiff or might disallow the relief claimed altogether but the Court has to prepare a decree whether the claim is allowed or dismissed. In General Rules and Circular Orders Civil, Vol. 1, Chap. 5, R. 11, exception is made in this respect and in certain cases no decree need be prepared". 12. The Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of High Court on its Own Motion v. Sunder Singh and Others reported in AIR 1986 Himachal Prad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless it is founded on a judgment which is complete and final. Under O. 41, R. 35 sub-rule (2) of the Civil P.C. the decree is required to contain a clear specification of the relief granted or adjudication made. When there is no judgment to which finality could be attached, no relief nor any adjudication could be regarded as having been granted or made. 9. For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the appeal preferred by the first and second respondents before the lower appellate Court will require to be treated as not having been disposed of in accordance with law. The decree formally drawn up and duly signed will have to be treated as having no effect in the eye of law. The appeal will require to be re-admitted on the file of the District Court and heard and decided afresh. Order accordingly." 13. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 S.C. 194 had held as under :- 10. In our opinion, a judgment within the meaning of these sections is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal pronouncement" or delivery in open Court. It is a judicial act which must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of the Court. Only then does it crystallise into a full fledged judgment and become operative. It follows that the Judge who delivers the judgment, or causes it to be delivered by a brother Judge, must be in existence as a member of the Court at the moment of delivery so that he can, if necessary, stop delivery and say that he has changed his mind. There is no need for him to be physically present in court but he must be in existence as a member of the Court and be in a position to stop delivery and effect an alteration should there be any last minute change of mind on his part. If he hands in a draft and signs it and indicates that he intends that to be the final expository of his views it can be assumed that those are still his views at the moment of delivery if he is alive and in a position to change his mind but takes no steps to arrest delivery. But one cannot assume that he would not have changed his mind if he is no longer in a position to do so. A Judge s responsibility is heavy and when a man s life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture; also, a question of public policy is involved. As we have indicated, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the law is the final decision of the whole Court. It is not because there are nine Judges that there are nine judgments. When each of the several Judges of whom a simple Court is composed separately expresses his opinion when they are all assembled, there is still but one judgment, which is the foundation for one decree. If it were otherwise, and if each of the memoranda sent in on the present occasion were a judgment, there would be nine judgments in one case, some deciding one thing and some another, and each Judge would have to review his own judgment separately, if a review should be applied for. We do not agree with everything which fell from the learned Chief Justice and the other Judges in that case but, in our opinion, the passages given above embody the true rule and succinctly explain the reasons for it. 14. As soon as the judgment is delivered, that becomes the operative pronouncement of the Court. The law then provides for the manner in which it is to be authenticated and made certain. The rules regarding this differ but they do not form the essence of the matter and if there is irregularity in carrying them out it is curable. Thus, if a judgment happens not to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
