Supreme Court of India
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.
- Decided
- 1 May 1989
- Judges listed
- R.S. PATHAK
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1989] 2 S.C.R. 817 · 1989 INSC 157
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
PATHAK, CJ. After hearing learned counsel for the parties briefly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 of which review is sought, should be recalled and the cases be heard again on the merits. It appears to us prima facie that in respect of certain items an inconsistency is present in the impugned judgment when regard is had to the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd., [1984] I S.C.R. 347. Inasmuch as the cases are being re-opened, we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on the merits of the points raised in the cases. Objection was taken by the respondent manufacturers to the Review Petitions on the ground that the finality of the judgment should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our opinion, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance, and therefore call for reconsideration.
p. 818, margin C
Accordingly, we allow the Review Petitions, and recall the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and restore the cases to their original number and direct that they be listed again for fresh consideration. There is no order as to costs. N.P.V Petitions allowed.
p. 818, margin E