Page 50 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A66 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

roneous, the Court must be satisfied with a fair amount of unanimi-
ty amongst its members that a revision of the said view is fully justi-
fied. It is not possible or desirable, and in any case it would be in-
expedient to lay down any principles which should govern the ap-
proach of the Court in dealing with the question of reviewing and
revising its earlier decisions.”
33. In Maganlal Chhaganlal’s case (supra), a Bench of seven learned Judges of
this Court considered, inter alia, the question : whether a judgment of the Su-
preme Court in Northern India Caterers’ case was required to be overruled.
Khanna, J. observed :
“At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that certainty and con-
tinuity are essential ingredients of rule of law. Certainty in law
would be considerably eroded and suffer a serious setback if the
highest Court of the land readily overrules the view expressed by it
in earlier cases, even though that view has held the field for a num-
ber of years. In quite a number of cases which come up before this
Court, two views are possible, and simply because the Court con-
siders that the view not taken by the Court in the earlier case was a
better view of the matter would not justify the overruling of the
view. The law laid down by this Court is binding upon all Courts in
the country under Art. 141 of the Constitution, and numerous cases
all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken
by this Court. Many people arrange their affairs and large number
of transactions also take place on the faith of the correctness of the
view taken by this Court. It would create uncertainty, instability
and confusion if the law propounded by this Court on the basis of
which numerous cases have been decided and many transactions
have taken place is held to be not the correct law.”
34. In the case of the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra), the question before a
Constitution Bench of five learned Judges was : when can this Court properly
dissent from a previous view?
35. In regard to the effect of an earlier order of this Court Sawant, J. speak-
ing for the Constitution Bench observed in Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s
case (supra) as follows :
“The decision of this Court on a question of law is binding on all
Courts and authorities. Hence under the said clause the President
can refer a question of law only when this Court has not decided it.
Secondly, a decision given by this Court can be reviewed only un-
der Art. 137 read with R.1 of O. XL of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 and on the conditions mentioned therein. When, further, this
Court overrules the view of law expressed by it in an earlier case, it
does not do so sitting in appeal and exercising an appellate jurisdic-
tion over the earlier decision. It does so in exercise of its inherent
power and only in exceptional circumstances such as when the ear-
lier decision is per incuriam or is delivered in the absence of relevant
or material facts or if it is manifestly wrong and productive of pub-
lic mischief. [See Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar -
1955 (2) SCR 603].
40. The petitioners in these writ petitions seek reconsideration of the final
judgments of this Court after they have been unsuccessful in review petition
and in that these cases are different from the cases referred to above. The
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  66