- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. And Another, Bala-Nagar v. Ajit Prasad Tarway .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent-plaintiff, an employee of the appellant-company, was placed under suspension after charges were framed against him. Alleging that the action was malicious and driven by personal animosity of the General Manager, he filed a suit challenging both the disciplinary enquiry and his suspension. The trial court initially granted an ex parte interim stay of the suspension and enquiry but later revoked it after hearing both sides.
On appeal, the first appellate court modified the trial court’s order: it restrained the company from proceeding with the enquiry during the pendency of the suit but upheld the suspension. Both parties then filed revision petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the plaintiff’s petition, staying both the suspension and the enquiry, and dismissed the company’s petition. The company obtained special leave to appeal, giving rise to the present Supreme Court proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, had jurisdiction to interfere with the first appellate court’s interlocutory order that partly upheld the plaintiff’s suspension while staying the disciplinary enquiry.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153; (1966) 1 SCR 102 | Scope of Section 115 CPC—High Court’s revisional jurisdiction confined to cases of jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity. | Cited to support the view that mere error in decision, absent jurisdictional defect or material irregularity, does not justify interference under Section 115. |
| D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, (1969) 3 SCC 807; (1970) 2 SCR 368 | Limits on revisional powers of High Courts under Section 115 CPC. | Reinforced the proposition that supervisory revision cannot substitute an appellate review when the subordinate court had jurisdiction and acted without material irregularity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the first appellate court undeniably possessed jurisdiction to grant partial relief—staying the enquiry while maintaining the suspension. The High Court’s power under Section 115 CPC is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors, illegal exercise of jurisdiction, or material irregularity. It found no finding by the High Court that the first appellate court had acted without jurisdiction or committed a material irregularity. Consequently, even if the appellate order were erroneous on merits, the High Court could not invoke Section 115 to overturn it. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and D.L.F. Housing, which emphasize that revision is not an additional appellate forum.
Holding and Implications
Appeal No. 840 of 1971 Allowed; Appeal No. 841 of 1971 Dismissed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the first appellate court’s decision. No order as to costs.
Implications: The judgment reaffirms the confined scope of High Court revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. It underscores that errors within jurisdiction cannot be corrected in revision, reinforcing judicial discipline between appellate and supervisory remedies without creating new substantive precedent beyond reiterating existing principles.
K.S Hegde, J.— These are appeals by special leave. They arise from the order made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in two connected revision petitions.
2. The material facts of the case are as follows. The respondent-plaintiff is serving in the company of defendant-appellant. The defendant Company framed charges against him in respect of certain matters. Pending enquiry of those charges the plaintiff was placed under suspension. Immediately he was placed under suspension, the plaintiff rushed to the court and filed a suit challenging the validity of the enquiry ordered against him. He also challenged the validity of his suspension. He pleaded that the proceedings against him were initiated on malicious grounds. His case was that the General Manager of the defendant Company was inimically disposed towards him and that was the reason for proceeding against him. In the suit he applied for an interim order staying the operation of his suspension as well as the proceedings in the enquiry directed against him. The learned trial Judge issued an interim ex parte order as prayed for by him, but at later stage he revoked that order after hearing both the parties.
3. Aggrieved by that decision, the plaintiff went up in appeal. The appellate court modified the order of the trial court. It directed defendant to refrain from proceeding with the enquiry ordered till the decision of the suit but as regards suspension of the plaintiff it sustained the order of the trial court.
4. Aggrieved by this decision both the plaintiff and the defendant went up in revision to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court accepted the revision petition of the plaintiff but rejected that of the defendant. It stayed the operation of the suspension order as well as the proceedings in the enquiry. It is as against that decision these appeals have been brought.
5. In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code: See the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153, (1966) 1 SCR 102 D.L.F Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh (1969) 3 SCC 807, (1970) 2 SCR 368
6. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow Appeal No. 840 of 1971. and dismiss No. 841 of 1971. The resulting position is that the order of the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court restored. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs in this Court.
Alert