Case: M/S.Purbanchal Cables &amp; Conductors P.Ltd Vs. Assam State Electricity Board

consideration of an earlier judgment is made. It was held: “…When it is urged that the view already taken by this Court should be reviewed and revised, it may not necessarily be an adequate reason for such review and revision to hold that though the earlier view is a reasonably possible view, the alternative view which is pressed on the subsequent occasion is more reasonable. In reviving and revising its earlier decision, this Court should ask itself whether in the interests of the public good or for any other valid and compulsive reasons it is necessary that the earlier decision should be revised. When this Court decided questions of law, its decisions are, under Art. 141, binding on courts within the territory of India, and so, it must be the constant endeavour and concern of this Court to introduce and maintain an element of certainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by this Court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view pressed before it later appears to the Court to be more reasonable, may incidentally tend to make law uncertain and introduce confusion which must be consistently avoided. This is not to say if on a subsequent occasion, the Court is satisfied that its earlier decision was clearly erroneous, it should hesitate the correct the error; but before a previous decision is pronounced to plainly erroneous the Court must be satisfied with fair amount of unanimity amongst its members that a revision of the said view is fully justified. It is not possible or desirable, and in any case it would be inexpedient to lay down any principles which should govern the approach of the Court in dealing with the question of reviewing and revising its earlier decisions. It would always depend on several relevant considerations:-What is the nature of the infirmity or error on which a plea for a review and revision of the earlier view is based? On the earlier occasion, did some patent aspects of the question remain unnoticed, or was the attention of the Court not drawn to any relevant and material statutory provision, or was any previous decision of this Court bearing on the point not noticed? Is the Court hearing such plea fairly unanimous there is such an error in the earlier view? What would be the impact of the error on the general administration of law or public good? Has the earlier decision been followed on subsequent occasions either by this Court or by High Courts? And, would the reversal of the earlier decision lead to public inconvenience, hardship or mischief? These and other relevant considerations must be carefully borne in mind whenever this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction to review and revise its earlier decisions….” 66) We are in full agreement with the view expressed in Keshav Mills case (supra). The learned Senior Counsel Shri Rakesh Dwivedi has not been able to make out a case for reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Assam Small Scale Industries (supra). In fact, a plea for reconsideration of the same was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Tubes (supra). We are unable to agree with the argument of Shri Dwivedi and Shri Gupta that the provisions of the Act were not considered in its entirety. In fact, the entire scheme of the Act has been considered in the case of Rampur Fertilizers (supra) and specific answer to the issue under consideration was answered. 67) In the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. - (1980) 3 SCC 719 , His Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer. J., speaking for the Constitution Bench held: “6. It is wise to remember that fatal flaws silenced by earlier rulings cannot survive after death because a decision does not lose its authority “merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned.”…” 68) In light of this dictum, and the factum that no case has been made out for reconsideration by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the suppliers, we do not see any reason much or less good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision in Assam Small Scale Industries or Shakti Tubes (supra). When there are four decisions of this Court with regard to the applicability of the Act for contracts entered into prior to the commencement of the Act, and when the plea for reconsideration has been expressly rejected in the past, we are of the view, it would be against the spirit of the doctrine of stare decisis for us to take any view in divergence with same.69) Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for suppliers also contended that the extension of date of supply order, from time to time by Board, amounts to a novation of contract or supply order in terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contracts Act and, therefore, the new contract or supply order would be governed by the Act. In our opinion, the ground or issue of novation of Contract is a mixed question of fact and law and it is being raised, for the first time, at the time of hearing of the case before us which cannot be permitted to be raised. The said fact of novation or alteration of contract is required to be urged evidentially and scrutinised by the courts below. In absence of such factual findings, it is not possible to decide such a mixed question of law and facts. In Shakti Tubes Ltd. (supra), the issue of novation of contract was raised before this Court for the first time at the time of hearing. This Court declined to entertain such ground as being a mixed question of law and fact. This Court further observed that even on the merits of the case the escalation of price, reduction of the quantity of the supply order and extension of date of supply does not amount to novation or alteration in the supply order.Conclusion

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]66) We are in full agreement with the view expressed in Keshav Mills case (supra). The learned Senior Counsel Shri Rakesh Dwivedi has not been able to make out a case for reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Assam Small Scale Industries (supra). In fact, a plea for reconsideration of the same was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Tubes (supra). We are unable to agree with the argument of Shri Dwivedi and Shri Gupta that the provisions of the Act were not considered in its entirety. In fact, the entire scheme of the Act has been considered in the case of Rampur Fertilizers (supra) and specific answer to the issue under consideration wasIn light of this dictum, and the factum that no case has been made out for reconsideration by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the suppliers, we do not see any reason much or less good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision in Assam Small Scale Industries or Shakti Tubes (supra). When there are four decisions of this Court with regard to the applicability of the Act for contracts entered into prior to the commencement of the Act, and when the plea for reconsideration has been expressly rejected in the past, we are of the view, it would be against the spirit of the doctrine of stare decisis for us to take any view in divergence with same.69) Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for suppliers also contended that the extension of date of supply order, from time to time by Board, amounts to a novation of contract or supply order in terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contracts Act and, therefore, the new contract or supply order would be governed by the Act. In our opinion, the ground or issue of novation of Contract is a mixed question of fact and law and it is being raised, for the first time, at the time of hearing of the case before us which cannot be permitted to be raised. The said fact of novation or alteration of contract is required to be urged evidentially and scrutinised by the courts below. In absence of such factual findings, it is not possible to decide such a mixed question of law and facts. In Shakti Tubes Ltd. (supra), the issue of novation of contract was raised before this Court for the first time at the time of hearing. This Court declined to entertain such ground as being a mixed question of law and fact. This Court further observed that even on the merits of the case the escalation of price, reduction of the quantity of the supply order and extension of date of supply does not amount to novation or alteration in the supply order.