Back
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, M.R.SHAH
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
PRATIBHA INDUSTRIES LTD. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R. F. Nariman, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) The present appeal raises questions relatable to the High Court’s power of recall of its orders.
3) By a Tender Notice dated 19.09.2008, supply, installation and maintenance of water meters of various sizes were called for. The Tender Notice contained Clause 22, which reads as under:-
“22. Jurisdiction of Courts:
In case of any claim, dispute or difference arising in respect of the contract, the cause of action thereof shall be deemed to have arisen in Mumbai and all legal proceedings in respect of any such claim, dispute or difference shall be instituted in a competent court in the city of Mumbai only.
If any dispute, difference or claim is raised by either party relating to any matter arising out of the contract, the aggrieved party may refer such dispute within a period of 7 (seven) days to the concerned Deputy Municipal Commissioner (DMC) of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, who shall constitute a committee comprising of 3 (three) MCGM Officers i.e., concerned DMC or Director (ES & P), Chief Engineer other than the Engineer of contract & concerned C.A. the committee shall give decision in writing within 60 (sixty) days.
App
None of the provided case excerpts indicate that *Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. (2019) 3 SCC 203*—which is the central subject of the provided list—has been overruled or reversed. Furthermore, none of the supporting cases (such as *Lilly Thomas v. State of Kerala* or *Tungabhadra Industries Ltd.*) are identified as bad law within the provided text.
### Followed / Applied / Relied Upon
The vast majority of the entries reflect that *Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd.* is being actively followed and relied upon by various High Courts and legal practitioners as a valid precedent regarding the inherent power of a High Court to recall its own orders.
* **Reliance on Legal Principles:** Cases like Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai VS S. Indramoorthy - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 1798, Tanushri Mitra VS State Of West Bengal - 2021 0 Supreme(Cal) 91, State of Jharkhand VS B. M. S. Associates - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 216, and State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Information Technology VS Webel Technology Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 941 explicitly state that the court is relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in *Pratibha Industries* to determine the scope of a High Court's inherent power to recall or review orders.
* **Reiteration of Law:** Entries such as P. Varavara Rao VS State Of Maharashtra - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1339 and Regional Director (North Eastern Region) Staff Selection Commission VS Umor Ali S/O. Ayub Ali - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1114 note that the Supreme Court "reiterated the position in law" or expressed similar views, confirming its status as authoritative precedent.
* **Procedural Scope:** SURJIT SINGH ARORA vs SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 725, SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA PUJAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6868, and SAJID PASHA vs ABDUNNASIR P. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7170 categorize the decision as a guiding authority on the distinction between a "review" and the inherent power to "recall," confirming its status as current, active law.
### Distinguished / Clarified
* **Limitation/Scope:** In Sudhir Kumar Srivastava VS Alok Kumar Mukherjee - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 102, the court notes, "the judgment in the case of Pratibha Industries Limited (supra) may not be of any help to the applicant/petitioner." This indicates that while the case is not "bad law," it is being distinguished based on the specific facts or the prayer of the petitioner, meaning it is not applicable in that specific context.
* **Clarification:** Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigration Company VS Union of India - 2023 5 Supreme 519 mentions that the judgment "no doubt discusses the inherent powers," but proceeds to contextualize this against other constitutional powers of the High Court.
* Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotion Trust vs State Of Assam Through Health And Family Welfare, Department, - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1574 and Dr Ruhul Amin Bepari, S/O M U Bepari vs State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Higher Education Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 803: These entries mention the case in the context of being a "subsequent case," but the provided text is truncated and lacks a clear descriptive verb regarding the current treatment of the authority.
* Collector and District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur vs Harekrushna Samal - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 7: This entry lists the case name but lacks any narrative text or judicial commentary to clarify how it is being treated in that specific proceeding.
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
