Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S.Pathak, CJI., L.M.Sharma, J.
Assistant Collector Of Central Excise
Versus
Madras Rubber Factory
Case No. : 597 , 601 of 1987
Date of Decision : 5/1/89
Advocates Appeared: Divan Anil B. : Ganguli A.K. : Haksar A.N. : Lukose R.K. : Mishra D.N. : Nambiar K.R. : Nariman F.S. : Ram P.K. : Rao P.P. : Swamy K.
Respect of certain items an inconsistency - Call for reconsideration - Learned counsel for parties briefly Court are satisfied that judgment and order of which review is sought should be recalled and cases be heard again on merits - It appears to us prima facie that in respect of certain items an inconsistency is present in impugned judgment when regard is hard to law laid down by this court – Held, Inasmuch as cases are being re-opened Court refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on merits of points raised in cases - Objection was taken by respondent manufacturers to review petitions on ground that finality of judgment should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly - In Court opinion points raised by petitioners are of substantial public importance and therefore call for reconsideration – Petitions are allowed
Judgment
R.S. PATHAK, CJI.
(1) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties briefly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 20/12/1986 [Asstfc Collector of central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., 1986 Supp SCC 751: 1987 SCC (Tax) 115] 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. 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 reconsideration.
(2) ACCORDINGLY, we allow the review petitions, and recall the judgment and order dated 20/12/1986 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
