The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that mere dismissal of an SLP, with or without reasons, would not attract the doctrine of merger nor would it amount to a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution unless there is a specific declaration.

The Court was considering a Review Petition against an order remitting the claims of the Respondent-Contractor back to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed, "...even if the order of dismissal of an SLP is supported by reasons, the doctrine of merger would not be attracted. However, the reasons stated by the Court would attract the applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, if it is tantamount to a law declared by the Supreme Court. Such law laid down would be binding on all Courts and tribunals in India. The mere dismissal of an SLP, with or without reasons, would not attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order impugned before it, nor would it amount to a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution unless there is a specific declaration of law made while dismissing the SLP by a reasoned order."

The Petitioner was represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Sourabh Malhotra.

Facts of the Case

The judgment was sought to be reviewed on the ground that the Court had committed an error apparent. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent-Contractor argued that the judgment cannot be subjected to review by it in view of the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP leaving claims to be re-adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator.

It was argued that the judgment sought to be reviewed by the Union of India has merged with the said order and therefore, cannot be reviewed. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in V.Senthur and another vs. M. VijayKumar and another, 2017 to buttress the submission that once the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed against the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is not open to this Court to review the judgment even if good grounds are made out for such review.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset discussed the permissible grounds on which a Review Petition may be entertained and while referring to the expression “any other sufficient reason”, stressed that it must be read ejusdem generis with the remaining two grounds and cannot be interpreted as granting a blanket licence for litigation or re-adjudication of matters.

It went on to clarify that mere dismissal of an SLP, with or without reasons, would not attract the doctrine of merger nor would it amount to a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution unless there is a specific declaration.

"In the instant case, the Supreme Court has simply dismissed the SLP without even indicating reasons for dismissing such SLP. The net result of the dismissal of the SLP filed by the respondent-contractor is that the judgment passed by this Court has not been interfered with, without saying anything more. In such situation, the doctrine of merger would not apply, and the judgment passed by this Court would still be open to review, of course, on permissible grounds. This Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent contractor to the maintainability of this review petition", the Court ruled.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Union of India vs. M/S D. Khosla & Co.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Eishan Dadeechi

Respondent- Advocate Sourabh Malhotra

Click here to read/ download Order


Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High CourtJustice Sanjeev Kumar

Sheetal Joon