M/S PURBANCl-IAL CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. v. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER

"29 ... (x) In order to enable the Court to refer any case to a larger Bench for reconsideration, it is necessary to point out that particular provision of law having a bearing over the issue involved was not taken note of or these is an error apparent on its face or that a particular earlier decision was not noticed, which has direct bearing or has taken a contrary view ... ."

65Copy pinpoint65. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT - (1965) 2 SCR 908 crystallized the position with regard to what the Court should do when a plea for consideration of an earlier judgment is made. It was held:

" ... When it is urged that the view already taken by this H Court should be reviewed and revised, it may not

PURBANCHAL CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. v. 957 ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [H.L. DATTU, J.]

necessarily be an adequate reason for such review and revision to hold that though the earlier view is a reasonably possible view, the alternative view which is pressed on the subsequent occasion is more reasonable. In reviving and revising its earlier decision, this Court should ask itself whether in the interests of the public good or for any other valid and compulsive reasons it is necessary that the earlier decision should be revised. When this Court decided questions of law, its decisions are, under Art. 141, binding on courts within the territory of India, and so, it must be the constant endeavour and concern of this Court to c introduce and maintain an element of certainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by this Court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view pressed before it later appears to the Court to be more reasonable, 0 may incidentally tend to make law uncertain and introduce confusion which must be consistently avoided. This is not to say if on a subsequent occasion, the Court is satisfied that its earlier decision was clearly erroneous, it should hesitate the correct the error; but before a previous decision is pronounced to plainly erroneous the Court must be satisfied with fair amount of unanimity amongst its members that a revision of the said view is fully justified. It is not possible or desirable, and in any case it would be inexpedient to lay down any principles which should govern the approach of the Court in dealing with the question of reviewing and revising its earlier decisions. It would always depend on several relevant considerations:- What is the nature of the infirmity or error on which a plea for a review and revision of the earlier view is based? On the earlier occasion, did some patent aspects of the question remain unnoticed, or was the attention of the Court not drawn to any ·relevant and material statutory provision, or was any previous decision of this Court bearing on the point not noticed? Is the Court hearing such plea fairly unanimous there is such an error in the earlier view? What would be H

958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A the impact of the error on the general administration of law or public good? Has the earlier decision been followed on subsequent occasions either by this Court or by High Courts? And, would the reversal of the earlier decision lead to public inconvenience, hardship or mischief? These B and other relevant considerations must be carefully borne in mind whenever this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction to review and revise its earlier decisions .... " I

66Copy pinpoint66. We are in full agreement with the view expressed in C Keshav Mills case (supra). The learned Senior Counsel Shri Rakesh Dwivedi has not been able to make out a case for reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Assam Small Scale Industries (supra). In fact, a plea for reconsideration of the same was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Tubes (supra): We are unable to agree with the 0 argument of Shri Dwivedi and Shri Gupta that the provisions of the Act were not considered in its entirety. In fact, the entire scheme of ttie Act has been considered in the case of Rampur Fertilizers (supra) and specific answer to the issue under consideration was answered. E

67Copy pinpoint67. In the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. - (1980) 3 SCC 719, His Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer. J., speaking for the Constitution Bench held:

"6. It is wise to remember that fatal flaws silenced by earlier rulings cannot survive after death because a decision does not lose its authority "merely because it was badly argued, · inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned." ... "

68Copy pinpoint68. In light of this dictum, and the factum that no case has been made out for reconsideration by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the suppliers, we do not see any reason much or less good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision in Assam Small Scale Industries or Shakti Tubes (supra). When there are four decisions of this Court with regard to the applicability of the Act for contracts entered into prior to

PURBANCHAL CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. v. 959 ASSAM STATE.ELECTRICITY BOARD [H.L. DATTU, J.]

the commence)nent of the Act, and when the plea for reconsideration has been expressly rejected in the past, we are of tlie view, i.t would be against the spirit of the doctrine of stare decisis for us·to take any view in divergence with same.

69Copy pinpoint69. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for suppliers also contended that t_he extension of date of supply order, from time to time by Board, amounts to a novation of contract or supply order in terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contracts Act and, therefor¢, the new contract or supply order would be governed by the P:ct. In our opinion, the ground or issue of novation of C Contract is a· mixed question of fact and law and it is being raised, for tbe first time,. at the time of hearing of the case before us which cannot be permitted to be raised. The said fact of novation or alteration of contract is required to be urged evidentiallY.and scrutinised by the courts below. In absence of such factual findings, it is not possible to decide such a mixed D q1Jestion o1 law and facts. In Shakti Tubes Ltd. (supra), the issue of novatio'R '•, of contract was raised before this Court for the first Jime at the time of hearing. This Court declined to entertain such · ground asJ~eing a mixed question of law and fact. This Court f1Jrther -eqserved that even on the merits of the case the E escalation of price, reduction of the quantity of the supply order and ext~nsion of date of supply does not amount to novation or alteration in the supply order.

Conclusicm F

70Copy pinpoint70. The result is appeals fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. No order as to costs.

R-P. Appeals dismissed.