1. Application for review of a judgment concerning the exercise of discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution regarding the jurisdiction of a tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 172
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd August, 1960
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Balvantrai Chimanlal Trivedi, Petitioner
Versus
M. N. Nagrashna and others, Respondents.
Natverlal Niralal Talati and others, Interveners.
Review Petn. No. 37 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. J. B. Mehta, Advocate and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with them), for Petitioner; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 2(a) to 2(n); Mr. J. B. Mehta, Advocate and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Interveners Nos. 1 to 13; Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Interveners Nos. 14 to 19.
Advocates:
B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, J.B.MEHTA, N.C.CHATTERJI, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.S.SHUKLA
B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, J.B.MEHTA, N.C.CHATTERJI, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.S.SHUKLA
Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the court's power to grant special leave is discretionary. If the court finds no failure of justice, it is not obligated to interfere or decide on the jurisdiction of the original tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Constitution - Articles 136 and 226 - Special leave to appeal - Discretionary power - Where the court is of the view that there is no failure of justice, it is not bound to interfere under its powers under Article 136, even if a question of jurisdiction of the original court or tribunal is raised, particularly when the matter has been considered by a higher tribunal which had jurisdiction. (Paras 2 and 4)
(B) Review - Grounds - Mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record - Omission to consider certain statutory provisions does not justify review if the decision on the question of failure of justice would remain the same. (Para 3)
(C) Jurisdiction - Decisions of original courts and tribunals may be allowed to stand even though there may be some doubt as to the jurisdiction of such courts or tribunals, provided there has been no failure of justice. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A review petition was filed against a judgment delivered in an appeal granted under Article 136 of the Constitution. The previous judgment had declined to interfere with an order of a wages authority on the ground that there was no failure of justice, despite a challenge to the authority's jurisdiction. The petitioner sought review on the grounds of errors apparent on the record, the necessity of a larger bench for issues regarding Article 226, and the failure to consider specific provisions of an industrial relations act.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the previous judgment did not deal with the powers of the High Court under Article 226 and did not conflict with previous precedents. It further held that the agreement of other parties to be governed by a decision is not a ground for review.
Issues: Whether the court is obligated to decide the question of jurisdiction in an appeal under Article 136 when it is satisfied that there has been no failure of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The powers under Article 136 are discretionary. If the court is satisfied that the ends of justice do not justify interference, it is not bound to deal with the merits or the question of jurisdiction, even if leave has been granted.
Result: Review application dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Review sought on grounds of errors apparent on record, necessity of a larger bench for Article 226 issues, and the requirement to decide jurisdictional questions. (Para 1 , 4 )
3. The Court observed that Article 136 powers are discretionary and interference is not mandatory if no failure of justice occurred, regardless of jurisdictional doubts. (Para 2 , 4 )
4. Under Article 136, the Court is not bound to interfere or decide jurisdictional issues if it is satisfied that there has been no failure of justice. (Para 2 , 4 )
5. Review application dismissed with costs. (Para 4 )
6. When is the Supreme Court bound to interfere under Article 136 regarding jurisdictional errors?
The Court is not bound to interfere under Article 136, even when a question of jurisdiction of the original court or tribunal is raised, if it concludes that there has been no failure of justice. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. Does the granting of special leave under Article 136 mandate a full merit-based decision on all raised issues?
No. Since the exercise of powers under Article 136 is discretionary, the Court may decline to deal with the merits or jurisdictional questions if it is satisfied that the ends of justice do not justify interference. (Para 4 )
8. Can the agreement of third parties to be governed by a decision serve as a ground for review?
No, the fact that other parties have agreed to be governed by a decision cannot be a ground for reviewing that judgment. (Para 3 )
9. Does an omission to consider certain statutory provisions automatically justify a review of a judgment?
Not necessarily. A review is not justified if the Court finds that the decision on the core issue—such as whether a failure of justice occurred—would remain the same even if those provisions were considered. (Para 3 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : This is an application for review of the judgment delivered by this Court, to which three of us were party, on October 29, 1959*. The ground on which review is sought is that there are mistakes and/or errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore the judgment in question should be reviewed. The petitioner contends further that the judgment under review had dealt with the matter of issue of writs by High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution and this involved a question which could only have been dealt by a bench of not less than five judges - and that is why the review application has been placed before a bench of five judges. Lastly it is contended that this Court should have decided the question of jurisdiction as various other parties had agreed to be governed by the decision in this case and that would have saved multiplicity of proceedings.
* Since reported in AIR 1960 SC 407 - Ed.
2. Before we deal with the points urged in support of the petition we should like to state what exactly has been decided by the judgment under review. The appeal in which the judgment under review was given came up before the Court on special leave granted under Art. 136 of the Constitution from a decision of the Bombay High Court in a writ petition filed there under Art. 226 against an order of the Payment of Wages Authority. The question of jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority was raised before this Court and reliance in that connection was placed on the decision in A. V. D Costa v. B. C. Patel, 1955-1 SCR 1353. It was remarked in the judgment under review that there appeared to be some force in the contention relating the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority; but this Court did not go further and decide that question on the view that as there had been no failure of justice this Court would not interfere under its powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution, particularly as the matter came before it from a decision of the Bombay High Court and not directly from the Authority. In that connection reference was made to the case of A. M. Allison v. B. L. Sen, 1957 SCR 359, in which in similar circumstances this Court had refused to decide the question of jurisdiction, because it was satisfied that there had been no failure of justice. All that therefore the judgment under review decided was that where this Court is of the view that there is no failure of justice it is not bound to interfere under its powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Reference to Allison s case, 1957 SCR 359, was made only to show that in almost similar circumstances (except that Allison s case 1957 SCR 359, came to this Court on a certificate granted under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution), this Court had refused to decide the question of jurisdiction as there was no failure of justice. The judgment under review did not deal with the powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution and nowhere laid down anything in conflict with the previous decision of this Court in Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque , 1955-1 SCR 1104. Thus the narrow point decided by the judgment under review was that when dealing with an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no failure of justice, it is not bound to decide and interfere even when a question of jurisdiction of the original court or tribunal is raised in a case where the matter had been considered by a higher tribunal, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction, and the appeal to this Court is from the decision of the higher tribunal.
3. This being the decision of this Court in the judgment under review, let us see if there is any reason to review that judgment on the grounds urged in the petition. Before we consider the main ground in support of the review we should like to observe that the fact that other parties had agreed to be governed by the decision in the judgment under review can be no ground for review. Are there then such mis
