http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ANDOTHERS ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1989

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1989 SCR  (2) 817        1989 SCC  (3) 238  JT 1989 (2)   332        1989 SCALE  (1)1592

ACT:     Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XL--Judgment inconsist- ent with law on certain items--Review of--Points of substan- tial public importance raised--Review petitions allowed.     Constitution      of     India,       1950:      Article 137--Judgment--Review of--When permitted.

HEADNOTE:     The  petitioners-revenue filed petitions for  review  of the  judgment  and order dated December 20, 1986  passed  by this  Court.  The respondent-manufacturers objected  to  the same  on the ground that finality of the judgment should  be maintained and not disturbed lightly. Allowing the Review petitions, this Court,     HELD:  Prima  facie an inconsistency is present  in  the judgment  in respect of certain items when regard is had  to the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v.  Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984] 1 SCR 347. Besides,  the points  raised by the petitioners are of substantial  public importance and call for reconsideration- [818D]     Accordingly,  the judgment and order dated December  20, 1986 are recalled and the cases directed to be listed  again for fresh consideration. [818D]     Union  of India v. Bombay Tyres  International  Limited, [1984] 1 SCR 347 relied on.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos.  597 to 60 1 of 1987.                            IN     C.A.  Nos,  3195/79, 4731-32/84, SLP  No.  10108/80  and C.A.No. 793/84. 818                             WITH     C.A. Nos. 1313 & 388/81, SLPNo. 36/80, W.P. No.  192/77, SLP No. 404 1/81 and C.A. No. 2269/80.     A.K.  Ganguli,  K.  Swamy and P.  Parmeshwaran  for  the Petitioners.     F.S.  Nariman, Anil B. Diwan, R.K. Lukose, K.R.  Nambir, A.N. Haksar, D.N. Mishra and P.K. Ram for the Respondent.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The Order of the Court was delivered by     PATHAK,  CJ.   After  hearing learned  counsel  for  the parties  briefly,  we are satisfied that  the  judgment  and order  dated  20 December, 1986 of which review  is  sought, should  be  recalled  and the cases be heard  again  on  the merits.  It  appears to us prima facie that  in  respect  of certain  items an inconsistency is present in  the  impugned judgment  when  regard is had to the law laid down  by  this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International  Ltd., [1984]  1  S.C.R. 347. Inasmuch as the cases are  being  re- opened, we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on  the merits of the points raised in the cases.  Objection was  taken  by the respondent manufacturers  to  the  Review Petitions  on the ground that the finality of  the  judgment should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our  opinion,  the points raised by the petitioners  are  of substantial public importance, and therefore call for recon- sideration.     Accordingly,  we allow the Review Petitions, and  recall the  judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and  restore the  cases to their original number and direct that they  be listed  again for fresh consideration. There is no order  as to costs. N.P. V                             Petitions allowed. 819