# r960 August 3. Trit.·tdi v. l\"agras}n1a

- **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 113
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-10-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1958
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, Kapur, P. B. Gajendragadkab, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r960-august-3-trit-tdi-v-l-agras-n1a-1912
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Supreme Court-Appeal by special leave-Question of jurisdiction of inferior court-Court not bound to decide where there is110
failure of justice-Review-Constitution of India, Art. z36.
Where at the hearing of an appeal filed by special leave
from a decision of the High Court in a Writ Petition filed there
under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of
the Payment of Wages Authority, the Court constdered that
there was some force in the contention relating to the jurisdiction of the Authority concerned but did not decide that question
on the view that as there had been no failure of justice the
Court would not interfere under its powers under Art. 136, and
the appellant applied for a review of the judgment:-
15
r960
August 3.
Trit.·tdi
v.
l\"agras}n1a
114
SUPRE:~fE COCRT HEPORTS
[1961]
Held, that wide as arc the powers of the Supreme Court
under Art. x36 of the Constitution, its powers arc discretionary
and though special leave had been granted the Court was not
bound to decide the question of jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal or court where the decision of the inferior tribunal or
court had been taken to a higher tribunal which undoubtedly
had jurisdiction and from the decision of which the special leave
was granted if on the facts and circumstances of the case it came
to the conclusion in dealing with the appeal under that Article
that there was no failure ol justice.
A. M. Allison v. Ii. L. Sen, [1957] S.C.R. 359, relied on.
C1v1L APPELLATE JumsDJCTION:
Review Petition
No. 37 of 1959.
Petit.ion for Review of this Court's judgment and
order dated October 29, 1959, in Civil Appeal No. 38
of 1958.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen,
J.B. Mehta and J.B. Dadachanji, for the petitioner.
N. C. ChaUerjee and S.S. Shulda, for respondents.
J. JJ. Mehta and J.B. Dadachanji, for intcrveners
Nos. 1 to 13.
J.B. Dadachanji, for interveners Nos. 14 to 19.
1960. August 3. The Judgment of the Cou~t was
t
delivered by
Wa•cnoo J.
WANCHOO J.-This is an application for review of
the judgment dolivered by this Court, to which three
of us were party, on October 29, 1959. The ground on
which review is sought is that there arc mistakes and/
or errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore the judgment in question should be reviewed. The
petitioner contends further that the judgment under
review had dealt with the matter of iBBue of writs by
High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution and
this involved a. question which could only have been
dealt by a bench of not less than five judges-and that
is why the review application has been placed before
a. bench of five judges. Lastly it is contended that this
Court should have decided the question of jurisdiction
as various other parties had agreed to be governed by
the decision in this case a.nd that would have saved
multiplicity of proceedings.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
115
Before we deal with the points urged in support of
the petition we should like to state what exactly has
been decided by the jndgment under review. The
appeal in which the judgment under review was given
came up before the Court on special leave granted
under Art. 136 of the Constitution from a decision of
the Bombay High Court in a writ petition filed there
under Art. 226 against an order of the Payment of
Wages Authority. The question of jurisdiction of the
Payment of Wages Authority was raised before this
Court and reliance in that connection was placed on
the decision in A. V. D'Gosta v. B. G. Patel and
another (1).
It was remarked in the judgment under
review that there appeared to be some force in the
contention relating to the jurisdiction of the Payment
of Wages Authority; but this Court did not go further
and decide that question on the view that as there had
been no failure of justice this Court would not interfere
under its powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution,
particularly as the matter came before it from a decision of the Bombay High Court and not directly from
t

## Text

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
113
trading with persons other than its members subject
to conditions and . restrictions, vide s. 31 of the
Co-operative Societies Act. This has, in fact, been
done here.
Once there is this extension of the business of a
Co-operative Society, the general words of the notification include the profits from such business within the
exemption",a.nd it would require more than a supposed
underlying intention to negative the exemption. To
Hoshiarpur
CentYal
co.operative
Bank Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of
lncome·lax,
Simla
gather the meaning of the notification in the light of Hidayatull•h J.
an alleged intention is to reverse the well-known canon
of interpretation. In our opinion, the profits were
exempt under the notification, and the answer to the
question ought to have been in the affirmative.
In the result, we allow the appeal with costs here
and in the High Court.
Appeal allowed.
SHRI BALWANTRAI CHIMANLAL TRIVEDI
v.
M. N. NAGRASHNA AND OTHERS.
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L, KAPUR,
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAB, K. SuBBA RAo and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Supreme Court-Appeal by special leave-Question of jurisdiction of inferior court-Court not bound to decide where there is110
failure of justice-Review-Constitution of India, Art. z36.
Where at the hearing of an appeal filed by special leave
from a decision of the High Court in a Writ Petition filed there
under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of
the Payment of Wages Authority, the Court constdered that
there was some force in the contention relating to the jurisdiction of the Authority concerned but did not decide that question
on the view that as there had been no failure of justice the
Court would not interfere under its powers under Art. 136, and
the appellant applied for a review of the judgment:-
15
r960
August 3.
Trit.·tdi
v.
l\"agras}n1a
114
SUPRE:~fE COCRT HEPORTS
[1961]
Held, that wide as arc the powers of the Supreme Court
under Art. x36 of the Constitution, its powers arc discretionary
and though special leave had been granted the Court was not
bound to decide the question of jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal or court where the decision of the inferior tribunal or
court had been taken to a higher tribunal which undoubtedly
had jurisdiction and from the decision of which the special leave
was granted if on the facts and circumstances of the case it came
to the conclusion in dealing with the appeal under that Article
that there was no failure ol justice.
A. M. Allison v. Ii. L. Sen, [1957] S.C.R. 359, relied on.
C1v1L APPELLATE JumsDJCTION:
Review Petition
No. 37 of 1959.
Petit.ion for Review of this Court's judgment and
order dated October 29, 1959, in Civil Appeal No. 38
of 1958.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen,
J.B. Mehta and J.B. Dadachanji, for the petitioner.
N. C. ChaUerjee and S.S. Shulda, for respondents.
J. JJ. Mehta and J.B. Dadachanji, for intcrveners
Nos. 1 to 13.
J.B. Dadachanji, for interveners Nos. 14 to 19.
1960. August 3. The Judgment of the Cou~t was
t
delivered by
Wa•cnoo J.
WANCHOO J.-This is an application for review of
the judgment dolivered by this Court, to which three
of us were party, on October 29, 1959. The ground on
which review is sought is that there arc mistakes and/
or errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore the judgment in question should be reviewed. The
petitioner contends further that the judgment under
review had dealt with the matter of iBBue of writs by
High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution and
this involved a. question which could only have been
dealt by a bench of not less than five judges-and that
is why the review application has been placed before
a. bench of five judges. Lastly it is contended that this
Court should have decided the question of jurisdiction
as various other parties had agreed to be governed by
the decision in this case a.nd that would have saved
multiplicity of proceedings.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
115
Before we deal with the points urged in support of
the petition we should like to state what exactly has
been decided by the jndgment under review. The
appeal in which the judgment under review was given
came up before the Court on special leave granted
under Art. 136 of the Constitution from a decision of
the Bombay High Court in a writ petition filed there
under Art. 226 against an order of the Payment of
Wages Authority. The question of jurisdiction of the
Payment of Wages Authority was raised before this
Court and reliance in that connection was placed on
the decision in A. V. D'Gosta v. B. G. Patel and
another (1).
It was remarked in the judgment under
review that there appeared to be some force in the
contention relating to the jurisdiction of the Payment
of Wages Authority; but this Court did not go further
and decide that question on the view that as there had
been no failure of justice this Court would not interfere
under its powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution,
particularly as the matter came before it from a decision of the Bombay High Court and not directly from
the Authority. In that connection reference was made
to the case of A. M. Allison v. B. L. Sen('), in which
in similar circumstances this Court had refused to
decide the question of jurisdiction, because it was
satisfied that there had been no failure.of justice. All
that therefore the judgment under review decided was
that where this Court is of the view that there is no
failure of justice it is not bound to interfere under its
powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Reference to
Allisons' Gase (') was made only to show that in almost
similar circumstances (except that Allison's Gase came
to this Court on a certificate granted under Art. 133(1)
(c) of the Constitution), this Court had refused to
decide the question of jurisdiction as there was no
failure of justice. The judgment under review did not
deal with the powers of the High Court under Art. 226
of the Constitution and nowhere laid down anything
in conflict with the previous decision of this Court in
H. V. Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others('.).
(1) [1955] 1 S.C. R. 1353.
(2) [1957] S.C.R. 359·
(3) (1955] 1 S.C.R. no4.
Trivedi
v.
TVanchoo ].
Trivttli
v.
Nagrasltna
Wanc1'oo }.
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Thus the narrow point decided by the judgment under
review was that when dee.ling with an appeal under
Art. 136 of the Constitution this Court oomea to the conclusion that there is no failure of justice, it is not bound
to decide and interfere even when a question of
jurisdiction of the original court or tribunal is raised
in a. case where the matter ha.d been considered by a.
higher tribune.I, which undoubtedly he.d jurisdiction,
and the appeal to this Court is from the decision of
the higher tribune.I.
Thie being the decision of this Court in the judgment under review, let us see if there is any reason to
review that judgment on the grounds urged in the
petition. Before we consider the me.in ground in support of the review we should like to observe that the
fact that other parties ha.d a.greed to be governed by
the decision in the judgment under review can be no
ground for review. Are there then such mistakes e.nd/
or errors apparent on the face of record which would
justify e. review? It is said that in dee.ling with whether there has been failure of justice in this case, this
Court omitted to consider certain provisions of the
Bombay Industrial Relations Aot, 1946. ABBuming
this to be correct, the question still is whether even
after e. oonsidere.tion of those provisions the decision of
this Court on the question of failure of justice would
have been different. On a. further consideration of the
reasons given in the judgment u_nder review for holding that there was no failure of justice we feel that the
decision on this point would have been still the same
even if the provisions referred to had been considered.
In the circumstances we are of opinion that there is
no ground for review of the judgment even if it be
assumed that certain provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, were relevant and had not
been considered.
The me.in plank· however of the petitioner is that
this Court was bound to consider the question of
jurisdiction and the question whether there we.a failure
of justice or not was bound up with the question of
jurisdiction and e. decision on that question was neces-
&&ry to arrive at the conclusion that there we.a p.o
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
117
failure of justice. This contention also must in our
opinion be rejected, specially in the context of the
narrow point which, as we have already indicated,
was decided in the judgment under review. Besides it
is not unknown to law that decisions of original courts
and tribunals may be allowed to stand even though
there may be some doubt as to the jurisdiction of such
courts or tribunals. There are provisions in the revenue
laws where in case of doubt whether the civil court or
the revenue court has jurisdiction the decision of the
original court is allowed to stand in certain circumstances if there has been no failure of justice : (see, for
example, ss. 290 and 291 of the U. P. Tenancy Act,
1939).
Therefore when the judgment under review
left the question of jurisdiction open on the ground
that there was no failure of justice and in consequence
this Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under
Art. 136, it cannot be said that something was done
which was unknown to law. It is necessary to remember that wide as are our powers under Art. 136, their
exercise is discretionary; and if it is conceded, as it
was in the course of the arguments, that this Court
could have dismissed the appellant's application for
special leave summarily on the ground that the order
under appeal had done substantial justice, it is difficult
to appreciate the argument that because leave has
been granted this Court must always and in every case
deal with the merits even though it is satisfied that
ends of justice do not justify its interference in a given
case. In the circumstances we are of opinion that this
Court was not bound to decide the question of jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of this case when
it had come to the conclusion in dealing with an
appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution that there
was no failure of justice. The review application therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Review application dismissed.
Trived;
v.
Nagrashna
Wa•choo ].