Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
"A party cannot seek review of a Supreme Court judgment merely for a rehearing; finality yields only to circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as a glaring omission or patent mistake, and if the view originally taken was a possible one on the record there is no error apparent justifying review."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether the Supreme Court should review its 1978 judgment holding that serving meals to casual visitors in a hotel restaurant was not a 'sale' liable to sales tax, on the strength of authorities not cited at the original hearing?
- (ii)
What are the limits of the Supreme Court's power to review its own judgments?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 137 (review of judgments and orders by the Supreme Court), read with the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL.
- (ii)
Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib (review only for a glaring omission, patent mistake or like grave error).
Application to Facts & Circumstances
In 1978 the Court had held that serving meals to casual visitors in the appellant's hotel restaurant did not amount to a sale of food on which sales tax could be levied. The Delhi Administration sought review, relying on English and American authorities and other material that had not been placed before the Court at the original hearing.
Writing for the majority, Pathak J. held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment of the Supreme Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. A judgment is ordinarily final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary, as where a glaring omission, a patent mistake or a like grave error has crept in through judicial fallibility.
There is no error apparent on the face of the record if the view originally adopted was a possible one on the record. The new material might have helped had it been cited earlier, but it did not show that the decision was wrong in a way that justified review.
Krishna Iyer J. agreed with the result in a separate opinion.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The review petitions were dismissed.
- (ii)
Review is not a rehearing; it lies only where circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as a patent error, make a departure from finality necessary, and not where the original view was a possible one.
- (iii)
The question of taxing food served in restaurants was later settled by the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, under which the supply of food or drink as part of a service is deemed to be a sale (Article 366(29A)(f)).
Authorities Cited
Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.
- Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 : AIR 1975 SC 1500Case brief →Full text of Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib on Indian Kanoon