1999 JTR(SC) 459
1999 AIR(SC) 2027 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 1735 ; 1999 36 AllLR 737 ; 1999 4 JT 454 ; 1999 5 JT 340 ; 1999 4 LLN 49 ; 1999 4 LLN 96 ; 1999 2 MLJ 88 ; 1999 2 Scale 541 ; 1999 3 SCC 643 ; 1999 2 SCR 539 ; 1999 2 SCT 650 ; 1999 4 SLR 5 ; 1999 4 Supreme 23
1999(4) Supreme 23
Supreme Court of India
(Record of Proceedings)
S.P. Bharucha, R.C. Lahoti & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Shramik Sena & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1854 of 1998
With
C.A. No. 1855/98 & 1099/99
Decided on 8-4-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Advocate with M/s. H.S. Parihar, KS Parihar, S. Birla, M.M. Varma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M/s. G.K. Banerjee, R.S. Raymond, R.N. Karanjawala, Nandini Gore, Sandeep Mittal, Manik Karanjawala, Advocates.
Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with M/s. S. Pakale, F. Rashid, A.K. Gupta, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
SUPREME COURT RULES : O.16, O.16 R.5(ii)
(A) The matter pertains to the regulation of additional affidavits in pending appeals before this Court, invoking the authority under Article 136 of the Constitution read with Supreme Court Rules, Order XVI, Rule 5(ii), which governs the conditions and permissions for filing supplementary material. The impugned practice of filing affidavits without prior judicial authorization undermines the procedural discipline contemplated for appellate review, necessitating strict adherence to the rules governing the record.
(B) The core legal principles are that an appellate court must maintain procedural decorum; additional affidavits require express leave of the Court; and the Registry must not allow extraneous factual material to be admitted without formal permission, ensuring that appeals are heard only on the established record.
Facts of the case:
In Civil Appeal Nos. 1854 of 1998 and 1855 of 1998, an additional affidavit was filed by the employees after the High Court judgment, relying on practice, without any order of the Court. There was no reply from the employer.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that no order exists to permit additional affidavits, and such practice is impermissible; the Registry is directed to reject affidavits setting out facts unless expressly authorized, and the matter is adjourned for the employer to reply.
Issues:
Whether an additional affidavit can be filed in a pending appeal without court permission; whether the Registry is bound to accept such affidavits as a matter of practice.
Ratio Decidendi:
The procedural integrity of appellate litigation requires that additional factual material be admitted only with the Courts leave; the Registry must enforce this rule and not treat unauthorized affidavits as part of the record.
Result:
The filing of the additional affidavit is disallowed; the Registry is directed not to take such affidavits on record in future; the appeal is adjourned for four weeks for a reply.
(A) The matter pertains to the regulation of additional affidavits in pending appeals before this Court, invoking the authority under Article 136 of the Constitution read with Supreme Court Rules, Order XVI, Rule 5(ii), which governs the conditions and permissions for filing supplementary material. The impugned practice of filing affidavits without prior judicial authorization undermines the procedural discipline contemplated for appellate review, necessitating strict adherence to the rules governing the record.
(B) The core legal principles are that an appellate court must maintain procedural decorum; additional affidavits require express leave of the Court; and the Registry must not allow extraneous factual material to be admitted without formal permission, ensuring that appeals are heard only on the established record.
Facts of the case:
In Civil Appeal Nos. 1854 of 1998 and 1855 of 1998, an additional affidavit was filed by the employees after the High Court judgment, relying on practice, without any order of the Court. There was no reply from the employer.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that no order exists to permit additional affidavits, and such practice is impermissible; the Registry is directed to reject affidavits setting out facts unless expressly authorized, and the matter is adjourned for the employer to reply.
Issues:
Whether an additional affidavit can be filed in a pending appeal without court permission; whether the Registry is bound to accept such affidavits as a matter of practice.
Ratio Decidendi:
The procedural integrity of appellate litigation requires that additional factual material be admitted only with the Courts leave; the Registry must enforce this rule and not treat unauthorized affidavits as part of the record.
Result:
The filing of the additional affidavit is disallowed; the Registry is directed not to take such affidavits on record in future; the appeal is adjourned for four weeks for a reply.
Order
Civil Appeal No. 1854 of 1998 by the employer and Civil Appeal No. 1855 of 1998 by the employees arise from the same judgment of the High Court. Reliance was placed, during the course of their hearing, on an additional affidavit dated 19th February, 1999, filed recently (22nd February, 1999) on behalf of the employees. There is no reply by the employer to the said affidavit.
2. There is no order of the Court that permits an additional affidavit to be filed. It is stated by the learned advocate-on-record for the employees that, as a matter of practice, such affidavits are filed and the Registry accepts them.
3. The said affidavit is an affidavit in which facts are pleaded, additional to the facts placed before the High Court. No such affidavit could have been filed and taken on record without the express permission of the Court to file the affidavit and place additional material on record. The Registry is hereby directed to ensure that no affidavits are taken on record in pending appeals, especially if they set out facts, unless orders of the Court permit them to be filed. This order shall be treated as a practice direction to be complied with hereafter in all matters.
4. Adjourned for four weeks to enable the employer to file a reply to the said affidavit. To be treated as part-heard.
(C.R.)
***********