- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bharat Builder Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Parijat Flat Owners Coop. Housing Society Ltd. .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 19-12-1997, the Supreme Court disposed of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22776 of 1997 filed by the present appellant. In that order, the Court directed the Bombay High Court to determine, through a review petition to be filed by the appellant, whether the relevant deed constituted a completed sale or merely an agreement to sell and, consequently, whether the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation and Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act applied. The Supreme Court expressly instructed the High Court to address these questions “regardless of the technical limitations of the review petition.”
The appellant filed the review petition before the same Division Bench that had delivered the original judgment. The Division Bench declined to examine the questions framed by the Supreme Court, reasoning that those issues had not been raised at trial or on appeal and therefore could not be entertained for the first time in review. It dismissed the review petition.
The present appeal challenges that dismissal. The respondent appeared, leave was granted, and the matter was heard by the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Bombay High Court erred in refusing to consider the specific questions remitted to it by the Supreme Court’s order dated 19-12-1997.
- Whether, in light of Article 144 of the Constitution of India, the High Court was bound to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions despite any perceived procedural limitations of a review petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that its earlier order unambiguously required the High Court to decide the nature of the deed and the consequent applicability of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act “regardless of the technical limitations of the review petition.” By refusing to entertain those questions, the Division Bench failed to carry out a direct mandate of the Supreme Court.
The Court invoked Article 144 of the Constitution, which obliges “all authorities, civil and judicial” to act in aid of the Supreme Court. The High Court’s non-compliance was therefore incompatible with the constitutional hierarchy of courts.
Given this clear departure from the Supreme Court’s directive—and the respondent’s fair concession that the impugned order could not stand—the Court held that the Division Bench’s dismissal of the review petition was unsustainable.
To ensure objectivity on remand, and because the same judges had already expressed views contrary to the Supreme Court’s instructions, the Court ordered that the review petition be placed before a different bench of the High Court.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE.
The review petition is restored to the Bombay High Court’s file to be heard afresh by judges other than those who issued the impugned order, with strict adherence to the Supreme Court’s directions of 19-12-1997. Pending further orders, execution of the decree remains stayed. No costs were awarded.
The decision reinforces the binding nature of Supreme Court directions on subordinate courts under Article 144 but does not establish new substantive precedent beyond reaffirming that constitutional principle.
1. The respondent appears.
2. Leave granted.
3. The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay on a review application in the following circumstances.
4. On 19-12-1997, on a special leave petition [SLP (C) No. 22776 of 1997] filed by the appellant against the respondent, the following order was passed:
“The Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay has, in the judgment and order under appeal, noted that the petitioner and the respondent had in an earlier writ petition, jointly filed, pleaded that the deed whose construction is relevant here ‘is a sale and not a lease’. The High Court took the view that this pleading was sufficient to reach the conclusion that the deed ‘is an agreement for a sale’.
We have been shown the relevant averments in the earlier writ petition. It appears that the High Court has not considered whether the admission is of a sale or an agreement to sell. We think that, in the circumstances, the petitioner should move the Division Bench of the High Court in this behalf, by the convenient means of a review petition.
We make it clear that the High Court shall decide, after hearing parties on the review petition, whether the admission is of a completed sale or of an agreement to sell and whether, by reason thereof, the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation and Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act will apply. Regardless of the technical limitations of the review petition, these questions shall be addressed.
Mr K.K Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the review petition shall be moved within 4 weeks. Mr Harish N. Salve, learned counsel for the respondent, states that, pending the review petition, no steps shall be taken to execute the decree that is under challenge.
The SLP is disposed of accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. The review petition was heard by the two learned Judges who had passed the order which was the subject-matter of the earlier SLP. The order on the review petition states
“it is contended that the Supreme Court while disposing of the abovesaid SLP has called upon this Court to decide. In interpreting the document Exh. E whether the admission made by the parties construing the document Exh. E in the earlier writ petition is of a completed sale or an agreement to sale and whether by reason thereof the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation and Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act will apply. In fact the aforesaid question was not at all a question raised in the suit in the trial court or before this Court. In fact the main question that was posed in the appeal was as to whether Exh. 3 was properly construed by the lower court as one of agreement to sell or as indenture of lease”.
The Division Bench has, therefore, come to the conclusion that
“rightly or wrongly an impression has been created while reading our judgment that we have solely relied upon the judgment of this Court in previous writ petition in interpreting the document Exh. E. This misunderstanding must have been crept in partly due to some clerical mistake occurred in some places in the judgment by using phrases agreement for sale instead of agreement to sell. However, the issue posed to be examined as directed by the Supreme Court is not the issue which was raised in the trial court or the appellate court and it is not permissible for us to go into such a fresh issue in this review application, first time. In view of this we do not find any merit in the contentions of the applicant and review application is, therefore, liable to be rejected”.
(emphasis supplied)
6. The Division Bench has not read the order that we passed on 19-12-1997. We have asked the Division Bench to consider the questions set out in the third paragraph of the order. To enable it to do so we have asked the appellants to move it “by the convenient means of a review petition”. We have ordered: “Regardless of the technical limitations of the review petition these questions shall be addressed.” Nonetheless, it has not done so.
7. It is necessary to point out to the High Court that the Constitution of India, in Article 144, requires all authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
8. It was imperative for the High Court to have decided the questions that it was required to decide by this Court's order dated 19-12-1997. For this reason, very fairly, the respondents do not object to the order under challenge being set aside and the review petition being sent back to the High Court.
9. The appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The review petition is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and decided afresh. In so deciding, the High Court shall scrupulously follow the requirements of the order of this Court dated 19-12-1997. In the circumstances aforestated, it becomes necessary to require that the review petition shall be listed before learned Judges other than those that passed the order under challenge.
10. Pending further orders no steps shall be taken to execute the decree.
11. No order as to costs.
Alert