Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable

The principles of natural justice embody the right to every
person to represent his interest to the court of justice.
Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of
the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to
represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of
natural justice.

In the case on hand, though during the course of hearing,
a reference was made as to the presence of learned Attorney
General by learned senior counsel for the respondents, as
mentioned above, we are satisfied that the Union of India was

not given an opportunity to represent its case due to mistake
on the part of the Registry.  Applying the well settled principles
governing a review petition and giving our anxious and careful
consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we
have come to the conclusion that the review petition filed by
the Union of India should be admitted on the basis of the
above reasoning.


NON-REPORTABLE
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Union of India        ....   Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores
Ltd. & Ors.             ....  Respondent(s)

 Citation (2012) 9 SCC 683
  

   
  Art. 137 - Grounds of review - Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-service of notice in SLPs subsequently
converted into civil appeals - Report from Registry confirming that notice not served on Ministry of Mines - Held,
principles of natural justice embody the right of every person to represent his interest to court of justice - Pronouncing a
judgment which adversely affects interest of the party to proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its
case is unacceptable under principles of natural justice - Union of India was not given an opportunity to represent its
case due to mistake on the part of Registry - Review petition admitted,  (2012) 9 SCC 683
                        O R D E R
1) At the foremost, we have carefully gone through the
review petition filed by the Union of India and the connected
papers and heard the arguments of Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,
learned Attorney General.  The main ground for review raised
by learned Attorney General is that the Union of India was not
duly served with the notice of the proceedings in any of the
petition for special leave to appeal which were subsequently
converted into civil appeals.  In addition to the claim of the
learned Attorney General, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate-on-Record
for the Union of India, in his letter dated 06.09.2012,
addressed to the Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of India,
has highlighted that since the counsel appearing for the
original appellants contended that the Union of India was duly
served and the office report shows that there was proof of
delivery duly signed, he requested the Registrar (Judicial) to
verify the correct position and ascertain whether the office
report is correct and whether it can be said that there is proof
of service on the Union of India.    
2) In view of the above assertion on behalf of the Union of
India about the defective service, we called for a Report from

the Registry.  We received a Report dated 26.09.2012 from
Registrar (Judicial-I) about the service and the office report for
the same.  The Report states that the notice was indeed not
served to “Ministry of Mines”  which is a respondent in these
cases, rather it was served to “Ministry of Coal and Mines”
which is not in existence.  On the basis of the information
furnished by the Registry and the assertion of learned Attorney
General, we are satisfied that the office reports have
erroneously stated that the “notice is complete/notice is duly
served”.
3) The principles of natural justice embody the right to every
person to represent his interest to the court of justice.
Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of
the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to
represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of
natural justice.
4) In the case on hand, though during the course of hearing,
a reference was made as to the presence of learned Attorney
General by learned senior counsel for the respondents, as
mentioned above, we are satisfied that the Union of India was

not given an opportunity to represent its case due to mistake
on the part of the Registry.  Applying the well settled principles
governing a review petition and giving our anxious and careful
consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we
have come to the conclusion that the review petition filed by
the Union of India should be admitted on the basis of the
above reasoning.
5) As far as review petitions filed by JSW Steel Ltd, M/s
Kalyani Steels Ltd, M/s Kalyani Steel Mills Ltd. and the State
of Karnataka are concerned, we are not passing any orders
until the review petition of the Union of India is heard.  
    ...…………………………………J.
                (P. SATHASIVAM)
...…………………………………J.
(H.L. DATTU)   
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 4, 2012

Print Page