1986 JTR(SC) 316
1987 AIR(SC) 179 ; 1987 AllCJ 50 ; 1987 CriLR 50 ; 1986 2 CurCC(SC) 925 ; 1992 61 ELT 170 ; 1986 JT 413 ; 1986 1 JT 413 ; 1986 2 Scale 407 ; 1986 4 SCC 246 ; 1986 SCC(Cri) 431 ; 1986 3 SCR 781 ; 1986 2 UPLBEC 1437 ; 1986 KHC 671
R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Civil Misc. Petns. Nos. 20021-22 of 1986, (In Civil Appeal No. 2924 of 1984), D/-12-9-1986.
M/s. Star Diamond Co. India, Applicant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.141
EVIDENCE ACT : S.115
(A) The Evidence Act, Section 115, which pertains to judicial notice and the conclusiveness of certain records, in conjunction with the Constitution of India, Article 141, which establishes that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts, was applied by the Bench to reject the applicant's contention of non-acceptance of prior directives. The Court held that its own pronouncements lay down the position in law and are binding irrespective of whether specific parties were served with notice in the instant proceedings, thereby elevating the status of the earlier orders to a general legal principle.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of judicial precedent under Article 141, the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments on all authorities, and the interpretation of statutory orders to include all items unless explicitly excluded. The Court clarified that inclusive language in administrative directions must be given its plain, comprehensive meaning, and departmental circulars that contradict judicially laid down policy are ineffective.
Facts of the case:
The applicant company sought clearance for the import of goods without possessing an Export House Certificate, arguing that it was not a party to previous proceedings and was not served notice, thus not bound by the directions. The respondent authorities had denied clearance based on two earlier judgments that mandated granting certificates and permitting import of all items except those specifically banned.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that its earlier decisions constituted law binding on the applicant, rejecting the argument of non-notice. It held that the directions issued were clear and inclusive, covering both canalised and non-canalised items, and that subsequent contradictory internal communications did not alter the legal position or create an estoppel.
Issues:
Whether the applicant is bound by the Supreme Court's earlier orders despite not being a party or served notice, and whether the import of canalised items falls within the scope of the directive dated 18th April, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Courts own judgments lay down the law binding on all authorities and parties; therefore, the applicant is estopped from denying the applicability of the directive, and the plain language of the order must be given effect to, encompassing all items not specifically banned.
Result:
The interim prayer for clearance was refused, and the applications were disposed of without granting any relief or order as to costs.
(A) The Evidence Act, Section 115, which pertains to judicial notice and the conclusiveness of certain records, in conjunction with the Constitution of India, Article 141, which establishes that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts, was applied by the Bench to reject the applicant's contention of non-acceptance of prior directives. The Court held that its own pronouncements lay down the position in law and are binding irrespective of whether specific parties were served with notice in the instant proceedings, thereby elevating the status of the earlier orders to a general legal principle.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of judicial precedent under Article 141, the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments on all authorities, and the interpretation of statutory orders to include all items unless explicitly excluded. The Court clarified that inclusive language in administrative directions must be given its plain, comprehensive meaning, and departmental circulars that contradict judicially laid down policy are ineffective.
Facts of the case:
The applicant company sought clearance for the import of goods without possessing an Export House Certificate, arguing that it was not a party to previous proceedings and was not served notice, thus not bound by the directions. The respondent authorities had denied clearance based on two earlier judgments that mandated granting certificates and permitting import of all items except those specifically banned.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that its earlier decisions constituted law binding on the applicant, rejecting the argument of non-notice. It held that the directions issued were clear and inclusive, covering both canalised and non-canalised items, and that subsequent contradictory internal communications did not alter the legal position or create an estoppel.
Issues:
Whether the applicant is bound by the Supreme Court's earlier orders despite not being a party or served notice, and whether the import of canalised items falls within the scope of the directive dated 18th April, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Courts own judgments lay down the law binding on all authorities and parties; therefore, the applicant is estopped from denying the applicability of the directive, and the plain language of the order must be given effect to, encompassing all items not specifically banned.
Result:
The interim prayer for clearance was refused, and the applications were disposed of without granting any relief or order as to costs.
A.K.GANGULY, A.Subhashini, ASHOK GROVER, Atul, B.Munim, P.M.AMIN, S.N.KACKAR, Sushma Relan
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- These two Civil Misc. Petitions are by Star Diamond Company India. The applicant has referred to the judgments of this Court in Raj Prakashs case dated 5th March, 1986 (1986) 2 SCC 297: (AIR 1986 SC 1021) and Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerces case dated 15th May, 1986, AIR 1986 SC 1567. The applicant states that the applicant was neither a party nor was served with any notice of the said proceedings resulting in the said two decisions. According to the applicant, it was not bound by the directions therein. We are unable to accept the said contentions. Such decisions of Court laying down the position in law are laws binding on all.
2. In the order of this Court dated 18th April, 1985, the question of entitlement under certain circumstances came up for consideration. The Government had wrongfully refused to allow Export House Certificates to those who had not diversified their exports. It was held by this Court following decisions of several High Courts that this was wrong. This Court in the order dated 18th April, 1985 in Civil Appeal No. 142.3 of 1984, (a) confirmed the orders of the High Court, quashed the impugned orders of the Government and directed the Government to issue necessary Export House Certificates for the year 1978-79; (b) It was further directed that Export House Certificates should be granted within three months from this date. (c) Save and except items which are specifically banned under the prevalent import policy at the time of import, the parties - the merchants would be entitled to import all other items whether canalised or uncanalised, and in accordance with the relevant rules. Both canalised and uncanalised items could be imported in accordance with the relevant rules except those which were specifically banned under the prevalent import policy at the time of import. The effect of this direction came to be considered in Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 1021) (supra). We have this date explained the effect of the same in Union of India v. M/s Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. (arising (Civil Appeal No. 3418/86 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8144 of 1986 (Reported in AIR 1987 SC 175). This question further came up for examination in the case of M/s Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerce v. Union of India (Writ Petn. No. 199 of 1986) (AIR 1986 SC 1567) (supra). This day we have also in the judgment in M/s Godrej Soaps case explained the true purport of the said decision.
3. The respondents have not permitted according to the applicant, clearance of the goods in view of the said two decisions referred to hereinbefore.
4. The case of the applicant is that it is not bound as the applicant was neither a party to any of the aforesaid proceedings nor any notice was given. We are unable to accept this position. For what we held in the said two decisions, we crave leave to refer to the said two decisions. We reiterate as we have mentioned in M/s Godrej Soaps case (AIR 1987 SC 175) whether importation of canalised items would be covered by the order was not adverted to in the first order dated 18th April, 1985. Use of the expression "whether canalised or not" was intended to convey that both canalised and non-canalised items would be covered within the ambit of the order.
5. The position has been clarified by the letter dated 18th June, 1986 written by the respondent which appears at page 132 of the Paper Book. It has been mentioned that the holders of additional licence issued for 1978-79 would be entitled to import only those goods which are included in Appendix 6 Part II of AM 85-88. The fact that the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 23rd April, 1986 wrote a letter which is not in consonance with the subsequent direction would not in any way affect the position or create any estoppel. Nor can such a letter be used as an argument that that was the governments understanding of the matter. That is irrelevant.
6. In the premises the interim order prayed for in these applications is refused.
7. The applications are thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.