evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
VALVUEARMATUREN V.U. BERATUNG GMBH AND CO. KG. v.

NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. AND ORS.

JULY 27, 1998

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND D.P. WHADHWA, JJ.]

International Arbitration :

Interim injunction- Operating for seven years-Held, in the nature of C disputes pending before the Court, issues relating to interlocutory interdictions need to be disposed of with utmost despatch-High Court would dispose of the issue concerning the vacation or otherwise of the injunction expeditiously.

Dresser Rand, SA. v. KG. Khosla Compressors Ltd. and Ors., [1995] D Supp. 3 sec 181, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON: Special Leave Petition (c) No. 10640of1998.

Arun Jaitley, Gopal Jain, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms.

E Seema Sapra and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Mr. Arun Jaitely, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a judgment of this court in Dresser Rand, SA. v. KG. p Khosla Compressors Ltd. & Ors., [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 181 and in particular, to paragraph 2, which reads thus:

"2. In a matter of this nature where questions of amenability of a dispute to international arbitration arise it is not proper to let loose and keep at large orders of injunction of this kind for unduly long G periods. It is inconsistent with the principles governing international arbitration. It is of utmost importance for the domestic courts to be circumspect in granting such interlocutory interdictiorJ.s. At any rate, the court must ensure that the matters are dealt with and disposed of with utmost despatch."

H After hearing Mr. Jaitely and perusing the record, we are of the opinion 916

"-.

' "\

V.A.V.U. BERA TUNGGMBHANDCO.KG. v. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. 917

that the issue relating to the vacation or continuance of the stay order, which A had been obtained by the respondent in Suit No. 3737/91, as early as in 29.11.1991 and is still in operation requires to be settled expeditiously. The issue has not been disposed of although almost sevea years have elapsed.

In the nature of the dispute pending before the Court, issues relating to interlocutory interdictions need to be disposed of with utmost despatch.

While not being inclined to interfere with an order adjourning the decision of issue in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we, however, consider it appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of the issue concerning the vacation or otherwise of the

injunction expeditiously and as far as possible before 31.12.1998.

With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of.

R.P.

Petition disposed of.
.. ,.,. .

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND ORS.

MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER CUM

LAND ACQUISITJON OFFICER

AUGUST 25, 1998

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 :

~ C A1ticle 137-Review-Second review-Delay-Explanation unsatisf act01y and not reasonable-Held, recourse to successive review petitions against same order not pe1111issible more so because no e1mr apparent on the record has been brought out-Filing of second review petition is an abuse of process of cowt-Review petition dismissed with costs-Review-Limitation.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. RPD

No. 17573 of 1998.

Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8745 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.94 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Nos. 497, 644/91 and A.S. No. 1350 of 1991.

Vimal Dave for the Petitioners/Appellants.

F The following Order of the Court was delivered :

There is a delay of 2 years and 321 days in filing this review petition.

The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and not at all reasonable. Besides, we also find that the petitioners had filed earlier also a review G petition No. 214 of 1995 against the same order, which was dismissed by this Court on 22.2.1995. Both in the memorandum of the review petition and in the application seeking condonation of delay, though this fact is mentioned, but the number of the review petition has been left blank and so also the date on which the same was dismissed. This shows the casual H manner in which this second review petition has been filed. Recourse to

• 124 1

M.S. MURTHY v. MAND AL REVENUE OFFICER > 125

successive review petitions against the same order is not permissible more A so because no error apparent on the record had been brought out. It appears to us that the petitioners are unnecessarily taking liberties. The filing of the Second review petition is an abuse of the process of the court.

We, therefore, dismiss this review petition both on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay and on merits with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The directions with regard to disbursement of the costs shall be issued after the same are deposited in the Registry.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.
JAGBIR AND ANR.

A v.

STATE OF PUNJAB

SEPTEMBER 3, 1998

(M.K. MUKHERJEE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED B

QUADRI, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :

Ss. 190( l)(b) and 378-Cognizance of offence 11pon police C repoTt-T!ial-Acquittal by trial co11rt-Appeal by complainant 11/s. 378(4)-High Cowt convicting and sentencing two of the accused-Held, in the instant case it was the &ate only who co11/d have filed appeal u/s. 378( 1) against order of acquittal after obtaining leave 11nder s11b-section (3) thereof and 1101 the complai11a11t, who could only file a11 application u/s.401 for revision uf that order-High Cowt will treat the memorand11111 of appeal as D application for revision of order of Sessions Judge qua the two appellants only and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 121of1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.95 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 373-DBA of 1980.

Ajay Siwach for Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.

R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Consequent upon a charge sheet ( challan) submitted by the police

and a committal enquiry that followed, the two appellants and others were placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur. The trial G ended in an acquittal of all of them; and aggrieved thereby, Birbal, the complainant, filed an appeal before the High Court after obtaining leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. In disposing of the appeal the High Court set aside the acquittal of the two appellants and convicted them under Section 302/34 1.P.C., while upholding the acquittal of others. Aggrieved by the H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A order of the conviction and sentence recorded against them the appellants filed this appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C.

Since the appeal must succeed on a pure question of law, we need not go into the facts of the case. Admittedly, the cognizance in the instant case was taken upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

B Resultantly, it was the State alone who could file an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. after obtaining leave under sub-section (3) thereof - and not the complainant who could only file an application under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for revision of that order. The High Court, therefore, was not at all justified in enter- C taining the appeal of the complainant and disposing the same in the manner aforesaid. On this score alone, we allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial Court. The High court will now treat the memorandum of appeal filed by the complainant as an application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge, qua the two appellants only, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appellants who are in jail be D released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.

.. -.
P. ASHOKAN A , •. v. .... '1'

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ' '

FEBRUARY 6, 1998

[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., B.N. KIRPAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B

C'('

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Article 32-Decision attaining finality-Reconsideration of-Held, c cannot be claimed on the basis of its effect in accordance with law-On merits, no case to entertain the petition under Article 32 made out.

Khoday Distilleries Limited and Anr. v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court India, [1996] 3 SCC page 114. .

( CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. of 1997.

Dairy No. 20068of1997.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) E

Manoj Swamp, Ms. Lalita Kohli and Ms. M. Swamp for Mis. Manoj Swamp & Co. for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F

-' T On merits, we find no case to entertain this petition under Article 32 of

the Constitution. Besides a three Judge Bench decision of this Court, authored by J.S. Verma, J. (as Hon'ble the Ex-Chief Justice then was) in Khoday Distilleries Limited and Anr. v. The Rejistrar General, Supreme Court of India, [1996] 3 SCC The Page 114 has ruled as follows: G

T- "In a case like the present, where in substance the challenge is to the correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final, there cari be no question of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision on tlie basis of its effect in accordance H 717

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1998) 1 S.C.R.

A with law. Frequent resort to the decision in Antu lay in such situations is wholly misconceived and impels us to emphasis tl1is fact." " '

We are in agreement with such view .

. ' B The writ petition is dismissed.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION A

NIKHIL GULA TI AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 13, 1998

[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI, B.N. KIRPAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B

Education-In eligible students-Permission to undertake examinations under Court orders-Deprecation of-Instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent-Such casual directions by Court is abuse of C process-Unless justified High Court should desid from making such orders- He/d no interference was called for under Article 136.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18853/1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.97 of the Rajasthan High Court in DBCSA 1181 of1997.

T.C. Sharma, Neelam Shanna, Mr. Ajay Shanna and Mr. Rupesh Kumar for the Petitioner.

S. K. Jain and Mr.AP. Dhamija for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are F permitted, under court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process; more so when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision G was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders for it puts the 'Rule of Law' to a mockery and promotes rather the 'Rule of Man'.

H 897

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1998) I S.C.R

All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students, herein. Therefore, we decline to interfere wider Article 136 of the Constitution.

The S.L.Ps. are, accordingly, dismissed.

T.N.A.

Petitions dismissed.
SANJAY MUSALE

ST ATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1998

[DR. AS. ANAND, B.N. KJRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.)

Public Interest Litigation-Petitioner filing writ petition in High Cowt for another person concealing mate1ial facts-High Cowt dismissed the petition-Held, there is no public ti1terest involved in the petition---Cowts cannot C allow their f 0111111 to be misused in the garb of ''public interest".

CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Civil No. 15971/98.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.98 of the Madhya Pradesh D High Court in W.P. No. 943 of 1997.

 Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

E Delay condoned.

The writ petition filed in the High Court by the petitioner concealed material facts as is noticed in the impugned order. The petitioner appears to have filed the litigation for someone. There is no public interest involved in the petition. The High Court rightly found him to be a busy body and, F in our opinion, such a meddlesome interloper cannot be permitted to maintain Public Interest Litigation Petition. The courts cannot allow their forum to be misused in the garb of "public interest". This special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed with Rs.5,000 as costs.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.