The substantial bearing of a legal provision on the question involved may require the reconsideration of a court's decision.

Headnote:
Circular - Reconsideration of Decision - The court directed reconsideration of its decision based on the substantial bearing of the second paragraph of a circular dated 1/4/1981, which was wrongly mentioned in the judgment as 18/4/1991.
Fact of the Case:

The court directed the reconsideration of its decision due to the substantial bearing of the second paragraph of a circular dated 1/4/1981, which was wrongly mentioned in the judgment as 18/4/1991.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the second paragraph of the circular had a substantial bearing on the question involved and therefore directed reconsideration of the decision.
Issues: The incorrect mention of the date of the circular in the judgment and its substantial bearing on the question involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The substantial bearing of the second paragraph of the circular dated 1/4/1981 on the question involved required the reconsideration of the decision.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to place the papers of the case before the Hon. chief justice of India for appropriate orders and to list the matter as early as possible.

( 1 ) IT appears that attention of this court when it decided the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Harbans Singh was not drawn to the second para of circular dated 1/4/1981, referred to in para 5 of the judgment. The learned counsel for the Banks state that the date of the circular is wrongly mentioned therein as 18/4/1991, and the correct date of that circular is 1/4/1981. In our opinion, the second para of that circular has a substantial bearing on the question involved and therefore, the decision requires reconsideration. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place papers of this case before the Hon. chief justice of India for appropriate orders. The learned counsel appearing for the Canara Bank and the Reserve Bank request that the matter may be directed to be listed, as early as possible as a large number of awards have been passed by the Ombudsman and they are creating problems for the Reserve Bank and other banks.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1998 Supreme(SC) 631

SUPREME COURT OF INDIACANARA BANK Vs. P. R. N. UPAADHYAYAADecided on May 15, 1998

The substantial bearing of a legal provision on the question involved may require the reconsideration of a court's decision.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CANARA BANK
Vs.
P. R. N. UPAADHYAYAA
Decided on May 15, 1998