CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7944 OF 2010
Union of India …. Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores
Ltd. & Ors. …. Respondent(s)
WITH
3 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOs.106, 107, 108 OF 2012
Ltd. & Ors. …. Respondent(s)
WITH
3 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOs.106, 107, 108 OF 2012
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7944 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7944 OF 2010
4 WITH
5
6 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOs. 655-662 OF 2011
5
6 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOs. 655-662 OF 2011
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7945-7946 & 7948-7953 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7945-7946 & 7948-7953 OF 2010
7
8 WITH
9
10 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOs. 1642-1645 OF 2011
9
10 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOs. 1642-1645 OF 2011
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7955, 7957, 7960 & 7961 OF 2010
O R D E R
1) At the foremost, we have carefully gone through the review petition
filed by the Union of India and the connected papers and heard the
arguments of Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General. The main ground
for review raised by learned Attorney General is that the Union of India
was not duly served with the notice of the proceedings in any of the
petition for special leave to appeal which were subsequently converted into
civil appeals. In addition to the claim of the learned Attorney General,
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate-on-Record for the Union of India, in his letter
dated 06.09.2012, addressed to the Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of
India, has highlighted that since the counsel appearing for the original
appellants contended that the Union of India was duly served and the office
report shows that there was proof of delivery duly signed, he requested the
Registrar (Judicial) to verify the correct position and ascertain whether
the office report is correct and whether it can be said that there is proof
of service on the Union of India.
2) In view of the above assertion on behalf of the Union of India about
the defective service, we called for a Report from the Registry. We
received a Report dated 26.09.2012 from Registrar (Judicial-I) about the
service and the office report for the same. The Report states that the
notice was indeed not served to “Ministry of Mines” which is a respondent
in these cases, rather it was served to “Ministry of Coal and Mines” which
is not in existence. On the basis of the information furnished by the
Registry and the assertion of learned Attorney General, we are satisfied
that the office reports have erroneously stated that the “notice is
complete/notice is duly served”.
3) The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to
represent his interest to the court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment
which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who
was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the
principles of natural justice.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7955, 7957, 7960 & 7961 OF 2010
O R D E R
1) At the foremost, we have carefully gone through the review petition
filed by the Union of India and the connected papers and heard the
arguments of Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General. The main ground
for review raised by learned Attorney General is that the Union of India
was not duly served with the notice of the proceedings in any of the
petition for special leave to appeal which were subsequently converted into
civil appeals. In addition to the claim of the learned Attorney General,
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate-on-Record for the Union of India, in his letter
dated 06.09.2012, addressed to the Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of
India, has highlighted that since the counsel appearing for the original
appellants contended that the Union of India was duly served and the office
report shows that there was proof of delivery duly signed, he requested the
Registrar (Judicial) to verify the correct position and ascertain whether
the office report is correct and whether it can be said that there is proof
of service on the Union of India.
2) In view of the above assertion on behalf of the Union of India about
the defective service, we called for a Report from the Registry. We
received a Report dated 26.09.2012 from Registrar (Judicial-I) about the
service and the office report for the same. The Report states that the
notice was indeed not served to “Ministry of Mines” which is a respondent
in these cases, rather it was served to “Ministry of Coal and Mines” which
is not in existence. On the basis of the information furnished by the
Registry and the assertion of learned Attorney General, we are satisfied
that the office reports have erroneously stated that the “notice is
complete/notice is duly served”.
3) The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to
represent his interest to the court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment
which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who
was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the
principles of natural justice.
4) In the case on hand, though during the course of hearing, a reference
was made as to the presence of learned Attorney General by learned senior
counsel for the respondents, as mentioned above, we are satisfied that the
Union of India was not given an opportunity to represent its case due to
mistake on the part of the Registry. Applying the well settled principles
governing a review petition and giving our anxious and careful
consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we have come to
the conclusion that the review petition filed by the Union of India should
be admitted on the basis of the above reasoning.
5) As far as review petitions filed by JSW Steel Ltd, M/s Kalyani Steels
Ltd, M/s Kalyani Steel Mills Ltd. and the State of Karnataka are concerned,
we are not passing any orders until the review petition of the Union of
India is heard.
was made as to the presence of learned Attorney General by learned senior
counsel for the respondents, as mentioned above, we are satisfied that the
Union of India was not given an opportunity to represent its case due to
mistake on the part of the Registry. Applying the well settled principles
governing a review petition and giving our anxious and careful
consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we have come to
the conclusion that the review petition filed by the Union of India should
be admitted on the basis of the above reasoning.
5) As far as review petitions filed by JSW Steel Ltd, M/s Kalyani Steels
Ltd, M/s Kalyani Steel Mills Ltd. and the State of Karnataka are concerned,
we are not passing any orders until the review petition of the Union of
India is heard.
……………………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
