HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD Vs. DILBAHAR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 27,2014
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
Dilbahar Singh
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CENTRAL TOBACCO COMPANY V. CHANDRA PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]P.R. KRISHNAMACHARI V. LALITHA AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
BELL AND CO. LTD. V. WAMAN HEMRAJ [REFERRED TO]
V.M. MOHAN V. PRABHA RAJAN DWARKA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN AND RAMAN LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM VS. SURAJ BHAN [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKAR VS. RAO GIRDHARI LAL CHODHURY [REFERRED TO]
H V MATHAI VS. SUBORDINATE JUDGE KOTTAYAM [REFERRED TO]
DATTONPANT GOPALVARAO DEVAKATE VS. VITHALRAO MARUTHIRAO JANAGAVAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJA LAKSHMI DYEING WORKS VS. RANGASWAMY CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM DASS VS. ISHWAR CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
BHOOLCHAND VS. KAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS [REFERRED TO]
RAI CHAND JAIN VS. CHANDRA KANTA KHOSLA [REFERRED TO]
RUKMINI AMMA SARADAMMA VS. KALLYANI SULOCHANA [REFERRED TO]
D SANKARANARAYANAN VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN ARORA VS. ASHA RANI [REFERRED TO]
M S ZAHED VS. K RAGHAVAN [REFERRED TO]
UBAIBA VS. DAMODARAN [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
T SIVASUBRAMANIAM VS. KASINATH PUJARI [REFERRED TO]
RAMDOSS VS. K THANGAVELU [REFERRED TO]
SHAW WALLACE AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. GOVINDAS PURUSHOTHAMDAS [REFERRED TO]
OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES VS. MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MOHIDEEN BASHIR OULIYA THAIKA VS. THAKADI EKIYA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-10-247] [REFERRED TO]BABINGTON S/O D FERGAD VS. SUDHAKAR VAMAN RAO [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-349] [REFERRED TO]
BUSHRA SAMAD & OTHERS VS. SANTHAMANIYAMMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-417] [REFERRED TO]
AHALE SUNNATHWAL JAMATH JOGI MADAM VS. HAJI SYED IRFAN HUSSAIN SAHIB [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-295] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINDER KANSAL VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-289] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR VS. KUSUM GOEL AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
KAMARUNNISSHAL BEGUM VS. S A SHAJAHAN ALI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
APPOLO CORRUGATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. C. SADASIVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-496] [REFERRED TO]
NALAKATH SAIDALI HAJI VS. KALLUPARAMBAN MUSTHAFA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-121] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLA VS. ISMALUTTY MASTER [LAWS(KER)-2017-7-327] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL @ APPU, VS. THAMPI [LAWS(KER)-2017-12-264] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. NEELAM CHHABRA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-348] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ORS. VS. SANJAY HARJAI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
DAYASADAN VS. MADRAS PINJRAPOLE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KRISHNA DUMREWALA VS. JIWAN MAL KOTHARI [LAWS(PAT)-2016-8-137] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN RAJAK VS. SRI KANT ROY [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-83] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. KAMAKHYA PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-2021-2-83] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR VS. DHIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA. [LAWS(PAT)-2022-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
POOKODAN MUHAMMED RIYAS VS. NAFEESA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-428] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER KUMAR VS. ROHIT MADAN & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
BASIL VS. REGIONAL SPORTS CENTER [LAWS(KER)-2023-3-160] [REFERRED TO]
HARMINDER SINGH KOGHAR VS. RAMNATH EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
D. THANDAPANI VS. N.R.P. KANDHASAMI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-555] [REFERRED TO]
TIRATH RAM AND ORS. VS. BALWANT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA RANI VS. SHABBIR AHMED [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-146] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAN VS. CHANDRAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-560] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KUMAR SINHA VS. HIRA LAL SAH [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY BHARDWAJ, SON OF LATE RADHESHYAM @ RADHESHYAM NAVIN RESIDENT OF MOHALLA VS. CHANDAN KESHRI, SON OF SRI MOHAN PRASAD KESHRI RESIDENT OF MOHALLA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-6-139] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR UJAGAR SINGH VS. ASHOK CHAUDHARY AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLAPPAN VS. K.R.RAVI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-221] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND JAIN VS. RAJESH JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN PRAKASH GUPTA VS. DEEPAK AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAM VS. P.A. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-512] [REFERRED TO]
RAO & COMPANY VS. BAIJU P JOSE [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-272] [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN & HARRIS PVT. LTD. VS. SHRI VARDHAMAN NAGAR SOCIETY [LAWS(PAT)-2016-8-166] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAN PISHARODY VS. T.S. RAJAGOPALAN [LAWS(KER)-2019-2-138] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. KUSUM GOEL [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH RAI AND ORS. VS. AJIT SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKAR VS. OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-193] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR VS. MAHENDER PAL GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. SUDESH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
A.K. GOEL VS. HARJEET KAUR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-88] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. HOTEL A.R.A.P. (P) LTD. VS. M/S.BUHARI SONS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. RAGHUNATH PRASAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-214] [REFERRED TO]
M.A. VENUGOPAL VS. N.R. SHANKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-305] [REFERRED TO]
P.K. SOMAN VS. JEEJA SURESH [LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-124] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SHARMA VS. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-251] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. LEELA ENTERPRISES VS. KAMAR SULTANA @ KAMER HASSAN [LAWS(APH)-2017-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
UMMER VS. UMMU HABEEBA [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-393] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. SARITA PAUL [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
M. HARIS VS. K.P. SURENDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-425] [REFERRED TO]
P.K. BABU VS. ULLENTAVIDA PARKKUM KALLUVALAPPIL KODILAN AYISHU [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-433] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VS. K.V. JOHN @ JOHNY [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-591] [REFERRED TO]
T K MEHAMOOD VS. P O ABOOBACKER KOYA [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-649] [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR DASS BHARDWAJ AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN DASS DECEASED THROUGH LRS VS. SUBHADRA DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-194] [REFERRED TO]
KHALIL AHMAD KHAN @ KHALIL AHMAD SON OF LATE MAQBOOL AHMAD KHAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA VS. PRAKASH KUMAR SON OF SHRI NAND KISHORE PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-2016-5-173] [REFERRED TO]
M VENKATACHALAM VS. K M VELU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-168] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KUMAR KHETRIWAL @ GOPAL KHETRIWAL VS. SMT. GEETA DEVI DOKANIA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
C J SEBASTIAN VS. MINI W/O M C SAJIMON [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-192] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER VS. SHRI JAINENDRA GURUKUL [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
MANZOOR ALAM VS. MICHEL ENDUZ [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-156] [REFERRED TO]
VELLUVANKANDY KAMALKUTTY VS. R. M. MUNEER [LAWS(KER)-2021-1-205] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHNI DEVI VS. DHRUV CHAND KATOCH (DEAD) [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL MADAN VS. ALLIED PROMOTERS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-183] [REFERRED TO]
RADHI RANEY & ANOTHER VS. NANKI FEROZE [LAWS(APH)-2018-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR PRASAD VS. DEVINDER KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-594] [REFERRED TO]
KOCHURANI THOMAS VS. STATE OF KERALA; REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES; KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD; MUNDAKAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVEBANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-224] [REFERRED]
SUKHVINDER KAUR VS. PREETI RAJPUT [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-381] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH R. KARTHA VS. K.A. ISMAIL [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
DENNY FRANCIS VS. NAVAMI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2017-12-166] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. RAJMOHINI SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMED SAJID VS. K P KHADEEJA [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-396] [REFERRED TO]
HASSAN KOYA A.K. VS. ERANHOLI KOYA [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-423] [REFERRED TO]
JIWAN SHAH VS. KESHAV PD. AGRAWAL [LAWS(PAT)-2014-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND ORS. VS. MUKTA SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2020-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. UMA SHANKAR PD GUPTA AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This group of eleven appeals and three special leave petitions has been referred to the 5-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict into the two 3-Judge Bench decisions one, Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others, 1993 1 SCC 499 and the other, Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others, 1988 AIR(SC) 1422. Ram Dass has followed Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others, 1960 AIR(SC) 655. At the time of hearing of Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2004, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the 2-Judge Bench, while dealing with the meaning, ambit and scope of the words "legality and propriety" under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Haryana Rent Control Act'), was confronted with the question whether the High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority. The appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others, 1993 1 SCC 499 in support of its contention that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence. On the other hand, the respondent pressed into service the decision of this Court in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others, 1988 AIR(SC) 1422 wherein it has been held that the expression "legality and propriety" enables the revisional Court to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. The 2-Judge Bench felt that there was conflict in the two decisions and for its resolution referred the matter to the larger Bench. In the Reference Order (dated August 27, 2009), the 2-Judge Bench observed, thus:
"Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others, 1993 1 SCC 499 wherein Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act was in question. It was held in the said decision that though Section 20 of the said Act provided that the revisional court can go into the 'propriety' of the order but it does not entitle the revisional court to re-appreciate evidence. A similar view was taken by a two Judge bench of this Court in the case of Ubaiba v. Damodaran, 1999 5 SCC 645.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others, 1988 AIR(SC) 1422 which was also a three Judge Bench decision. It has been held in that case that the expression "legality and propriety" enables the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. A similar view was taken by another three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others, 1960 AIR(SC) 655.
From the above it is clear that there are conflicting views of coordinate three Judge Benches of this Court as to the meaning, ambit and scope of the expression 'legality and propriety' and whether in revisional jurisdiction the High Court can re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by a larger bench since this question arises in a large number of cases as similar provisions conferring power of revision exists in various rent control and other legislations, e.g. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we direct that the papers be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench."
(2.)There are other appeals/SLPs in this group of matters, some of which arise from the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Kerala Rent Control Act') and the few appeals/SLPs arise from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act'). These appeals/SLPs following the Reference Order in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation have also been referred to the 5-Judge Bench. This is how these matters have come up before us.
(3.)It is appropriate to first notice the statutory provisions pertaining to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the above three Rent Control Acts. These provisions are not similar to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court in the matters arising from the Courts governed by the Code.
"Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others, 1993 1 SCC 499 wherein Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act was in question. It was held in the said decision that though Section 20 of the said Act provided that the revisional court can go into the 'propriety' of the order but it does not entitle the revisional court to re-appreciate evidence. A similar view was taken by a two Judge bench of this Court in the case of Ubaiba v. Damodaran, 1999 5 SCC 645.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others, 1988 AIR(SC) 1422 which was also a three Judge Bench decision. It has been held in that case that the expression "legality and propriety" enables the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. A similar view was taken by another three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others, 1960 AIR(SC) 655.
From the above it is clear that there are conflicting views of coordinate three Judge Benches of this Court as to the meaning, ambit and scope of the expression 'legality and propriety' and whether in revisional jurisdiction the High Court can re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by a larger bench since this question arises in a large number of cases as similar provisions conferring power of revision exists in various rent control and other legislations, e.g. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we direct that the papers be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench."
(2.)There are other appeals/SLPs in this group of matters, some of which arise from the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Kerala Rent Control Act') and the few appeals/SLPs arise from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act'). These appeals/SLPs following the Reference Order in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation have also been referred to the 5-Judge Bench. This is how these matters have come up before us.
(3.)It is appropriate to first notice the statutory provisions pertaining to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the above three Rent Control Acts. These provisions are not similar to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court in the matters arising from the Courts governed by the Code.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.