Supreme Court of India
VEDANTA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SESA STERLITE LTD.) versus THE GOA FOUNDATION & ORS. on 9 July 2021
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
AVEDANTA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN ASM/S SESA STERLITE LTD.)
v.
THE GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.
(Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18447 of 2020)
B
JULY 09, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Or.XLVII r.2 – Review of aCjudgment – Limitation – In accordance with r.2 of Or.XLVII, anapplication for review of a judgment has to be filed within thirtydays of the date of the judgment or order that in sought to bereviewed – No cogent grounds were furnished for the delay between20 and 26 months by the two parties in filing their applications forDreview – Review petitions were filed after the judges who deliveredthe judgments retired from the Court – Such practice is firmlydisapproved to preserve the institutional sanctity of the decisionmaking of the Court – Review petitioners were aware of the decision– Review petitions dismissed on the ground of limitation alone –However, in any event, no legitimate grounds for review of theEjudgment were made out and the review petitions dismissed on meritsas well.
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court HELD: The judges comprising the two-judge bench inFGoaFoundation II, Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta,retired from this Court on 30 December 2018 and 6 May 2020,respectively. The State of Goa preferred its four review petitionsin the month of November 2019, after Justice Madan B Lokur’sretirement, while Vedanta Limited preferred its four reviewpetitions in the month of August 2020, right after Justice DeepakGGupta’s retirement. Such practice must be firmly disapproved topreserve the institutional sanctity of the decision making of thisCourt. The review petitioners were aware of the decision of thisCourt. The review petitions are dismissed on the ground of H
A
limitation alone. However, in any event, no legitimate groundsfor review of the judgment in Goa Foundation II have beenmade out and the review petitions are dismissed on merits aswell. [Paras 2, 3][242-C-E]
Goa foundation vs Sesa Sterlite Limited & Ors. (2018)4 SCC 218:[2018] 2 SCR 361 – referred to B
Case Law Reference
[2018] 2 SCR 361referred to
Para 1
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Review Petition (Civil) DiaryNo.18447 of 2020
C
In
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32138 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2018 of the SupremeCourt of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32138 of 2015, SpecialDLeave Petition (Civil) No.32699 of 2015 and Writ Petition Nos.720 and711 of 2015
With
Review Petition (C) Diary No.41515 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.32138of 2015, Review Petition (C) Diary No.41517 of 2019 in Writ Petition(C) No.720 of 2015, Review Petition (C) Diary No.41543 of 2019 inSLP (C) No.32699-32727 of 2015, Review Petition (C) Diary No.41545of 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.711 of 2015, Review Petition (C) DiaryNo.18430 of 2020 in SLP (C) No.32707 of 2015, Review Petition (C)Diary No.18435 of 2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.711 of 2015 and ReviewPetition (C) Diary No.18438 of 2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.720 of 2015.
EF
By Circulation
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
G
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The review petitions have been preferred by the State of Goa(Diary No 41515 of 2019 and Diary No 41517 of 2019, both with a delayof 650 days and Diary No 41453 of 2019 and Diary No 41545 of 2019,both with a delay of 651 days) and by Vedanta Limited (formerly known H
Aas M/s Sesa Sterlite Limited) (Diary No 18430 of 2020, Diary No 18435of 2020, Diary No 18438 of 2020 and Diary No 18447 of 2020, all fourwith a delay of 907 days) against the judgement of a two-judge bench ofthis Court in Goa Foundation v.Sesa Sterlite Limited &Ors.[1],pronounced on 7 February 2018.
B2. In accordance with Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the SupremeCourt Rules, 2013, an application for review of a judgement has to befiled within thirty days of the date of the judgement or order that is soughtto be reviewed. No cogent grounds have been furnished for the delaybetween 20 and 26 months by the two parties in filing their applicationsfor review. The judges comprising the two-judge bench in GoaCFoundation II, Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, retiredfrom this Court on 30 December 2018 and 6 May 2020, respectively.The State of Goa preferred its four review petitions in the month ofNovember 2019, after Justice Madan B Lokur’s retirement, while VedantaLimited preferred its four review petitions in the month of August 2020,Dright after Justice Deepak Gupta’s retirement. Such practise must befirmly disapproved to preserve the institutional sanctity of the decisionmaking of this Court. The review petitioners were aware of the decisionof this Court.
3. Keeping in mind the above, we are inclined to dismiss theseEreview petitions on the ground of limitation alone. However, in any event,we also find that no legitimate grounds for review of the judgment in GoaFoundation II have been made out, and dismiss these review petitions onmerits as well.
4. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
F
Devika Gujral
Review petitions dismissed.
G
H
1 (2018) 4 SCC 218, hereinafter referred to as “Goa Foundation II”