Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
R.R.BHANOT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1994
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)
CITATION:
1994 AIR 1531 1994 SCR (1) 1
1994 SCC (2) 406 JT 1994 (1) 1
1994 SCALE (1)14
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. We have heard Smt Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel
for the respondent who has preferred this review petition.
On a consideration of the matter, we find that the grounds
raised in support of the review, do not justify our
interference with the earlier order dated February 9, 1993.
2. However, there is one other aspect which might bear
consideration. In the course of the order, it was observed:
(SCC p. 173, para 17)
"Ordinarily, keeping in view the judgment of
this Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita case’ we
should have remanded the case to the Tribunal
for a fresh disposal because of the fact that
the order of the Tribunal was rendered by only
one member or to have awaited the decision of
some cases pending in this Court in which the
validity of the order passed by single member
of the Tribunal is under consideration.......
3. This statement might be susceptible of an
interpretation that it denudes the efficacy of the
pronouncement of this Court in Mahabal Ram (Dr) v. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research2 to which reference was not
made at the hearing of the main appeal. It is, therefore,
appropriate that the observations, excerpted above, are
deleted from the order. They are, accordingly, deleted,
lest there be scope for any such misunderstanding.
408