Page 44 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

A136 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

ble, that since the remedy by way of review under the rules of Hon’ble Supreme
Court has been provided for and has been availed of, the inherent power could
not be invoked again for further clarification or modification, that it would be an
obvious abuse of the process of law without any responsibility.
Conclusion :
Conclusion of the preceding discussion has been summed up in para 23
of the decision in Laxmidas Morarji (D) by L.Rs v. Miss Behrose Darab Madan case,
which is worth extracting :
“23. Article 142 being in the nature of a residuary power based on equitable
principles, the Courts have thought it advisable to leave the powers under the
article undefined. The power under Article 142 of the Constitution is a consti-
tutional power and, hence, not restricted by statutory enactments. Though
the Supreme Court would not pass any order under Article 142 of the Consti-
tution which would amount to supplanting substantive law applicable or ig-
noring express statutory provisions dealing with the subject, at the same time
these constitutional powers cannot in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provisions. However, it is to be made clear that this power cannot be used to
supplant the law applicable to the case. This means that acting under Article
142, the Supreme Court cannot pass an order or grant relief, which is totally
inconsistent or goes against the substantive or statutory enactments pertain-
ing to the case. The power is to be used sparingly in cases which cannot be ef-
fectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law or when
the existing provisions of law cannot bring about complete justice between
the parties….”
[Laxmidas Morarji (D) by L.Rs v. Miss Behrose Darab Madan - AIR 2009 SC
(Supp) 2711]
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  44