LEGAL ISSUE: Maintainability of a special leave petition against an order rejecting a review petition when the main order is not challenged.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: T.K. David vs. Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Judgment Date: 05 October 2020

Date of the Judgment: 05 October 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 723

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a party challenge a review order without challenging the main order that was sought to be reviewed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a service law matter concerning a former bank employee. The court held that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable if the main order has not been challenged. This judgment clarifies the principle of merger and the finality of judicial orders. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, with the opinion being authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The petitioner, T.K. David, was an employee of the Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank. He was suspended and subsequently dismissed on 20 March 2003, following a disciplinary inquiry. The matter went through several stages of litigation. Initially, the Cooperative Arbitration Court modified the dismissal to a reduction in rank on 18 August 2010. Both the petitioner and the bank appealed this order. The Cooperative Tribunal then imposed compulsory retirement on 16 August 2011. The petitioner challenged this order before the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed by a single judge on 31 July 2013. The petitioner’s writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 11 March 2015. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 21 August 2015. A review petition and curative petition were also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review petition before the High Court against its earlier order, which was dismissed on 6 February 2020, leading to the present special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Date Event
20 March 2003 Petitioner dismissed from Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank.
18 August 2010 Cooperative Arbitration Court modifies dismissal to reduction in rank.
16 August 2011 Cooperative Tribunal imposes compulsory retirement.
31 July 2013 Kerala High Court Single Judge dismisses petitioner’s writ petition.
11 March 2015 Kerala High Court Division Bench dismisses petitioner’s writ appeal.
21 August 2015 Supreme Court dismisses petitioner’s Special Leave Petition.
02 March 2016 Supreme Court dismisses petitioner’s Review Petition.
12 May 2016 Supreme Court dismisses petitioner’s Curative Petition.
06 February 2020 Kerala High Court dismisses petitioner’s review petition against its earlier order.

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner’s initial dismissal was modified by the Cooperative Arbitration Court to a reduction in rank. However, the Cooperative Tribunal altered this to compulsory retirement. The Kerala High Court’s single judge and then the Division Bench upheld the Tribunal’s decision. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the special leave petition against the Division Bench order. The petitioner then filed a review petition before the High Court against its Division Bench order, which was also dismissed, leading to the present special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspect of challenging judicial orders, specifically the maintainability of a special leave petition against a review order. The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgment in Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359, which clarifies that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not deprive a party of their statutory right to review. However, the court also relies on Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, (2013) 2 SCR 550 and Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 696, which establish that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable if the main order is not challenged.

The court also discusses the principle of merger, stating that when a review petition is dismissed, there is no merger of the original order with the review order. Therefore, the challenge must be to the original order, not just the order dismissing the review.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

  • The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the earlier special leave petition should not operate as res judicata.
  • He contended that his dismissal was based on petty charges and was a result of political vendetta.
  • The petitioner submitted that the Cooperative Arbitration Court’s decision to reduce his rank was correct and should not have been overturned by the Cooperative Tribunal, which imposed compulsory retirement.
  • The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359, to argue that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not bar a review.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • The respondent argued that the special leave petition was not maintainable as the main order of the High Court had already been challenged and dismissed by the Supreme Court.
  • The respondent contended that the review petition had been correctly dismissed by the High Court after a thorough examination of the matter.
  • The respondent relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, (2013) 2 SCR 550 and Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 696, to argue that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable when the main order is not challenged.
See also  Supreme Court overturns conviction in corruption case due to lack of demand evidence: Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017)

Submissions Table

Main Submission Sub-Submission (Petitioner) Sub-Submission (Respondent)
Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition Dismissal of earlier SLP should not operate as res judicata. SLP against review order is not maintainable if main order is not challenged.
Validity of Dismissal Dismissal was based on petty charges and political vendetta. High Court correctly dismissed the review petition after thorough examination.
Correctness of Punishment Cooperative Arbitration Court’s decision to reduce rank was correct. Cooperative Tribunal’s decision to impose compulsory retirement was justified.
Reliance on Authorities Relied on Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. to argue for the maintainability of review. Relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi and Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to argue against the maintainability of the SLP.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the present special leave petition challenging the review order dated 06.02.2020 is maintainable when the Division Bench judgment dated 11.03.2015 has neither been challenged nor can be challenged in this special leave petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether the special leave petition against the review order is maintainable when the main order is not challenged? Not Maintainable The Supreme Court held that when a review petition is dismissed, there is no merger of the original order with the review order. Therefore, the challenge must be to the original order, not just the order dismissing the review. Since the main order of the High Court was already challenged and dismissed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be challenged again.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

  • Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the petitioner to support the argument that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not bar a review. The Supreme Court acknowledged this principle, stating that a party is not deprived of their statutory right to review even if their SLP is dismissed.
  • Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1987 SC 1627] – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to by the High Court in its judgment dated 06.02.2020 to justify the Cooperative Tribunal’s decision to impose compulsory retirement.
  • J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agarwal and Another [(2007) (2) SCC 433] – Supreme Court of India: This case was also referred to by the High Court in its judgment dated 06.02.2020 to justify the Cooperative Tribunal’s decision to impose compulsory retirement.
  • Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, (2013) 2 SCR 550 – Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court relied on this case to hold that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable if the main order is not challenged. The court reiterated that when a review petition is dismissed, there is no merger, and the challenge must be to the original order.
  • Manohar S/o Shankar Nale v. Jaipalsing S/o Shivlalsing Rajput (2008) 1 SCC 520 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi to support the view that the doctrine of merger does not apply when a review petition is dismissed.
  • DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782 – Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi to examine various situations that might arise in relation to orders passed in review petitions.
  • Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 696 – Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable when the main order is not challenged. The court emphasized that this principle has become a precedential principle.
  • Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput , (1994) 2 SCC 753 – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. regarding the maintainability of a special leave petition against a review order.
  • State of A.P. v. A.P. Jaiswal [(2001) 1 SCC 748] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to emphasize the importance of consistency in judicial pronouncements.
  • Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P. , AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174 – Supreme Court of India: This case was discussed in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to address the argument that subsequent judgments were per incuriam.

Authority Consideration Table

Authority How the Authority was Considered
Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Supreme Court of India Acknowledged as establishing that dismissal of an SLP does not bar a statutory review, but distinguished from the present case.
Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1987 SC 1627] – Supreme Court of India Referred to by the High Court to justify the imposition of compulsory retirement.
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agarwal and Another [(2007) (2) SCC 433] – Supreme Court of India Referred to by the High Court to justify the imposition of compulsory retirement.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, (2013) 2 SCR 550 – Supreme Court of India Followed to hold that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable when the main order is not challenged.
Manohar S/o Shankar Nale v. Jaipalsing S/o Shivlalsing Rajput (2008) 1 SCC 520 – Supreme Court of India Cited in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi to support that the doctrine of merger does not apply when a review petition is dismissed.
DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782 – Supreme Court of India Cited in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi to examine various situations that might arise in relation to orders passed in review petitions.
Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 696 – Supreme Court of India Followed to reiterate that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable when the main order is not challenged.
Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput , (1994) 2 SCC 753 – Supreme Court of India Referred to in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. regarding the maintainability of a special leave petition against a review order.
State of A.P. v. A.P. Jaiswal [(2001) 1 SCC 748] – Supreme Court of India Cited in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to emphasize the importance of consistency in judicial pronouncements.
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P. , AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174 – Supreme Court of India Discussed in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to address the argument that subsequent judgments were per incuriam.
See also  Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide in land dispute case: Manoj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Court’s Treatment
Petitioner’s argument that dismissal of earlier SLP should not operate as res judicata. The Court acknowledged the principle from Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. that dismissal of SLP does not bar a statutory review, but held that it doesn’t apply to the present case where the main order was not challenged.
Petitioner’s contention that dismissal was based on petty charges and political vendetta. The Court did not address this argument as it was not relevant to the issue of maintainability.
Petitioner’s submission that the Cooperative Arbitration Court’s decision to reduce rank was correct. The Court did not address this argument as it was not relevant to the issue of maintainability.
Petitioner’s reliance on Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. to argue for the maintainability of review. The Court acknowledged the principle but distinguished it from the present case, stating that the review petition was not maintainable as the main order was not challenged.
Respondent’s argument that SLP against review order is not maintainable if the main order is not challenged. The Court accepted this argument, relying on Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi and Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Respondent’s contention that the High Court correctly dismissed the review petition after thorough examination. The Court noted that the High Court had examined the review petition on merits but did not delve into the merits of the High Court’s decision.
Respondent’s argument that the Cooperative Tribunal’s decision to impose compulsory retirement was justified. The Court did not address this argument as it was not relevant to the issue of maintainability.
Respondent’s reliance on Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi and Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to argue against the maintainability of the SLP. The Court accepted this argument and held that the SLP was not maintainable.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359: The court acknowledged the principle that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not deprive a party of their statutory right to review, but distinguished it from the present case.
  • Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1987 SC 1627]: This case was noted as being referred to by the High Court to justify the imposition of compulsory retirement.
  • J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agarwal and Another [(2007) (2) SCC 433]: This case was also noted as being referred to by the High Court to justify the imposition of compulsory retirement.
  • Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, (2013) 2 SCR 550: The court followed this authority to hold that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable if the main order is not challenged.
  • Manohar S/o Shankar Nale v. Jaipalsing S/o Shivlalsing Rajput (2008) 1 SCC 520: This case was cited in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi to support the view that the doctrine of merger does not apply when a review petition is dismissed.
  • DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782: This case was also cited in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi to examine various situations that might arise in relation to orders passed in review petitions.
  • Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 696: The court followed this authority to reiterate that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable when the main order is not challenged.
  • Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput , (1994) 2 SCC 753: This case was referred to in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. regarding the maintainability of a special leave petition against a review order.
  • State of A.P. v. A.P. Jaiswal [(2001) 1 SCC 748]: This case was cited in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to emphasize the importance of consistency in judicial pronouncements.
  • Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P. , AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174: This case was discussed in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to address the argument that subsequent judgments were per incuriam.
See also  Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Convicted Murderer Implicated in Another Murder While on Bail: Somesh Chaurasia vs. State of M.P. (2021) INSC 408

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle that a challenge to a review order is not maintainable if the main order has not been challenged. The Court emphasized the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the principle of merger. The Court noted that the High Court had meticulously examined the review petition and found no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court reiterated that a review is not an appeal in disguise. The Court’s reasoning was based on procedural law and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

Reason Sentiment Score
Maintainability of special leave petition against review order without challenging main order 40%
Principle of merger and finality of judicial decisions 30%
High Court’s meticulous examination of the review petition 20%
Review is not an appeal in disguise 10%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Fact 20%
Law 80%

Issue: Is the SLP against the review order maintainable when the main order is not challenged?

Court’s Reasoning: Principle of merger: Dismissal of review petition does not merge with the original order.

Court’s Reasoning: Precedential principle: SLP against review order is not maintainable if main order is not challenged.

Decision: SLP dismissed as not maintainable.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that a challenge to a review order is not maintainable if the main order has not been challenged. The Court emphasized the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the principle of merger, stating that when a review petition is dismissed, there is no merger of the original order with the review order. The Court also relied on its previous judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi and Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. to support this view. The Court noted that the High Court had meticulously examined the review petition and found no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court reiterated that a review is not an appeal in disguise. The Court’s reasoning was based on procedural law and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The court quoted from the judgment as follows:

  • “The review petition filed by the petitioner, thus, was rejected on merits.”
  • “When the Special Leave Petition No. 24231 of 2015 challenging the earlier judgment has already been dismissed, such dismissal has become final between the parties.”
  • “This Court does not entertain a special leave petition in which no relief can be granted.”

Key Takeaways

  • A special leave petition against an order rejecting a review petition is not maintainable if the main order of the High Court has not been challenged.
  • The dismissal of a review petition does not merge with the original order. Therefore, the challenge must be to the original order, not just the review order.
  • The principle of finality of judicial decisions is paramount, and the court will not entertain a special leave petition if it cannot grant any relief.
  • The Supreme Court reiterated the precedential principle that a special leave petition against an order rejecting the review petition is not maintainable when the main judgment is not under challenge.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a special leave petition against an order rejecting a review petition is not maintainable if the main order of the High Court has not been challenged. This reaffirms the existing legal position on the principle of merger and the finality of judicial decisions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has reiterated the established principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by T.K. David, upholding the High Court’s decision to reject his review petition. The court reiterated the principle that a special leave petition against a review order is not maintainable if the main order has not been challenged. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and the finality of judicial decisions. The court’s decision was primarily based on procedural law and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

  • Maintainability of Special Leave Petition
  • Review Petition
  • Principle of Merger
  • Finality of Judicial Decisions
  • Service Disputes

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories:

  • Article 136, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue is whether a special leave petition can be filed against an order rejecting a review petition when the main order has not been challenged.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court held that such a special leave petition is not maintainable. The court stated that the challenge must be to the original order, not just the order dismissing the review.

Q: What is the principle of merger that the court discussed?

A: The principle of merger states that when a review petition is dismissed, the original order does not merge with the review order. Therefore, the challenge must be to the original order.

Q: What does this mean for future cases?

A: This means that if a party wants to challenge a judicial order, they must challenge the original order. They cannot bypass this by only challenging the order dismissing the review petition.

Q: What is a special leave petition?

A: A special leave petition is a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking permission to appeal against any judgment or order of any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Q: What is a review petition?

A: A review petition is a petition filed in the same court that passed the order, seeking a review of the order on the grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record.

Source: T.K. David vs. Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.