Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a money suit filed by the respondent (a cooperative sugar factory under liquidation) against the appellant (Khoday Distilleries Ltd.) for recovery of Rs. 1,00,76,630/- with interest. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, but the High Court of Karnataka in first appeal reversed the finding on limitation and decreed the suit with interest at 12% per annum from the date of demand (19.07.1994) to 03.08.1994 and 10% per annum from 04.08.1994 till payment. The appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine on 04.12.2009 without a speaking order. Thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition before the High Court, arguing that the High Court had granted interest at rates and from dates not claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The High Court dismissed the review petition on the ground that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the SLP, and therefore the High Court could not review its judgment. The appellant then challenged the dismissal of the review petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue is whether a review petition is maintainable before the High Court after the Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition against the same judgment, particularly when the dismissal is in limine and by a non-speaking order. The Supreme Court noted conflicting views among its benches: some hold that dismissal of SLP bars review (Abbai Maligai, Kunhayammed, Meghmala, Gangadhara Palo), while others hold that review is maintainable if no leave was granted and SLP was dismissed at preliminary stage (Palani Roman Catholic Mission, Bhakra Beas Management Board). The court also considered the nature of Article 136 power and the doctrine of merger. To resolve the conflict, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Maintainability After Dismissal of SLP - Doctrine of Merger - The question is whether a review petition is maintainable before the High Court after the Supreme Court dismisses a special leave petition against the same judgment. The court noted conflicting views: in Abbai Maligai and Kunhayammed, dismissal of SLP may bar review, while other cases hold that if leave is not granted and SLP is dismissed at preliminary stage, review is maintainable. The matter is referred to a larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement. (Paras 9-14) B) Constitutional Law - Article 136 - Nature of Power - Article 136 confers discretionary power on the Supreme Court, not a right of appeal. It is a special jurisdiction and residuary power unfettered by statute. The reference order highlights the need to consider the applicability of res judicata and merger when the Supreme Court exercises statutory appeal power versus Article 136 power. (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a review petition is maintainable before the High Court seeking review of a judgment against which a special leave petition has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court, particularly when the dismissal is in limine and by a non-speaking order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger Bench to resolve the conflicting views on the maintainability of a review petition after dismissal of a special leave petition in limine. The appeals are pending before the larger Bench.
Law Points
- Doctrine of merger
- Res judicata
- Maintainability of review petition after dismissal of special leave petition in limine
- Article 136 of the Constitution of India
