- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Initially, the petitioners filed special leave petitions (SLPs) challenging the main judgment of the National Commission. When those SLPs were taken up on 1 September 2003, the petitioners’ counsel, sensing an unfavourable outcome, sought leave to withdraw the petitions in order to pursue review proceedings. The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal, and the petitioners filed review applications, which were subsequently dismissed on 12 December 2003. The present SLPs were then filed to challenge that dismissal order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order dismissing a review petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector (2004) 4 SCC 122 and K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 to contend that SLPs can be entertained even after dismissal of a review petition.
- Submitted that these cases implicitly support the maintainability of the present SLPs.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994) 2 SCC 753 | An SLP is not maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition. | The Court applied this ratio and found itself bound by the decision, holding the present SLPs non-maintainable. |
| Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector (2004) 4 SCC 122 | Held that the bar of res judicata does not apply to an SLP filed after dismissal of review. | Court distinguished the case, noting it did not address the specific question of maintainability of an SLP against a review order. |
| K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 | Also dealt with the bar of res judicata in similar circumstances. | Likewise distinguished; the Court stated that maintainability was not examined in that decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began by observing that its earlier judgment in Shanker Motiram Nale squarely governed the issue and is binding precedent. That decision unequivocally declares that an SLP is not maintainable against an order dismissing a review petition. The petitioners’ reliance on Green View Tea & Industries and K. Rajamouli was found misplaced because:
- Those cases addressed only whether the principle of res judicata bars such SLPs, not their maintainability in the first place.
- Neither decision considered or overruled the dictum in Shanker Motiram Nale.
Because the controlling precedent remains unshaken, the Court concluded that the present SLPs are incompetent and must be dismissed.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. The Court dismissed the special leave petitions and made no order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reaffirms that a party cannot invoke the Supreme Court’s special-leave jurisdiction to challenge an order refusing review; the proper course is to challenge the original judgment itself. No new precedent was set, but the binding authority of Shanker Motiram Nale was reinforced.
Order
1. These special leave petitions are against an order dated 12-12-2003 passed in review petitions. It must be mentioned that against the main judgment special leave petitions had earlier been filed. However, when those special leave petitions reached hearing on 1-9-2003, the following order came to be passed:
“After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitions to seek review of the order of the National Commission. Permission is granted. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.”
It is clear from the order that the matter was argued for some time. It is clear that the Court was against the petitioners. Thus, as has become common nowadays, counsel applied for withdrawal on the ground that a review will be applied for.
2. Thereafter the review applications were filed before the High Court which have now been dismissed. By these special leave petitions the order dismissing the review petitions has been challenged.
3. In the case of Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994) 2 SCC 753 it has been held by this Court that against an order rejecting an application for review, a special leave petition is not maintainable. This authority is directly on the point in issue. Not only are we bound by it but we are also in agreement with it. Faced with this situation, it is sought to be submitted that this Court in the cases of Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector (2004) 4 SCC 122, (2004) Scale 547 and K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 has taken contrary views. We find that in these two cases the question whether a special leave petition was maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition, was not considered at all. In these cases, the question was whether special leave petition was barred by principles of res judicata. It was held that special leave petition was not barred by principles of res judicata. In neither of these cases has reference been made to the abovementioned judgment of this Court in Shanker Motiram Nale case (1994) 2 SCC 753. In both those cases it has been held that a special leave petition is maintainable only in the context of it not being barred on principles of res judicata. In both these cases the question whether a special leave petition is against an order disposing of a review petition was not considered at all. These cases therefore have no relevance at all.
4. On the basis of the ratio in Shanker Motiram Nale case (1994) 2 SCC 753 we hold that these special leave petitions are not maintainable. They are dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.
Court Masters
Alert