A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Registry to decline the registration of curative petitions on technical grounds, such as non-compliance with Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The court clarified that curative jurisdiction, as established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra [(2002) 4 SCC 388], mandates judicial rather than administrative oversight for decisions on maintainability. The judgment emphasized that matters involving curative petitions must be decided by a judicial bench, not the Registry, to ensure fair adjudication and avoid procedural overreach.

Keywords: Curative petition, Review petition, Supreme Court Rules 2013, Registry powers, Judicial oversight.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: M/S Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board and Others
• Case Number: Miscellaneous Application (Civil) No. 2045 of 2022
• Judgment Date: February 26, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
• Author: Justice Aniruddha Bose
• Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 758 : 2024 INSC 145
• Legal Provisions Involved: Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XLVIII Rules 2 and 4; Articles 129, 137, and 142 of the Constitution of India.
• Judgments Overruled: None
• Case Related to: Constitutional Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case originated from the rejection of curative petitions filed by M/S Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries and others, challenging a review petition dismissed in open court hearing. The Registrar declined the registration based on non-compliance with Order XLVIII Rule 2(1), which mandates an averment in the curative petition that grounds raised had been included in the dismissed review petition.

The appellant argued that this action overstepped the Registrar’s authority under Order XV Rule 5, which limits grounds for declining a petition to frivolity or absence of cause.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellants filed curative petitions after their review petitions were dismissed in open court.
2. The Registrar rejected these curative petitions, citing a lack of averment that the review petitions had been dismissed by circulation, as required by Order XLVIII Rule 2(1).
3. The dispute arose from a commercial transaction governed by the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993.
4. The original suit and appeals revolved around whether the provisions of the 1993 Act could apply retroactively to agreements preceding its enforcement.
5. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s dismissal, leading to review petitions and, subsequently, the contested curative petitions.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does the Supreme Court Registry have the authority to reject curative petitions for non-compliance with procedural requirements?
2. What are the judicial remedies available for procedural lapses in curative petitions?
3. How does the court reconcile procedural technicalities with substantive justice under curative jurisdiction?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Excessive Authority of Registrar: The appellants contended that rejecting curative petitions for technical deficiencies violated Order XV Rule 5, which restricts the Registrar’s grounds for rejection.

2. Judicial Decision-Making: They argued that procedural lapses in curative petitions should be decided by a judicial bench, not administratively by the Registrar.

3. Lack of Specific Rules: The absence of explicit directions in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, for dismissal of curative petitions due to open court hearings, was emphasized.

4. Substantive Justice: The appellants invoked the principle of ex debito justitiae, asserting that curative jurisdiction should correct gross injustices, transcending procedural strictures.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Compliance with Rules: The respondents supported the Registrar’s rejection, arguing that Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) was a mandatory procedural requirement.

2. Delays in Filing: They highlighted significant delays between the review petition dismissal (December 18, 2019) and curative petition filing (October 31, 2020).

3. Limited Scope of Curative Jurisdiction: The respondents cited Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra to argue that curative petitions are not a substitute for regular appellate or review processes.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Order XLVIII Rule 2(1), Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Requires averment that grounds raised in a curative petition were included in the dismissed review petition.

2. Order XV Rule 5, Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Limits the Registrar’s authority to refuse petitions to cases of frivolity or lack of cause.

3. Articles 129, 137, and 142, Constitution of India: Define the Supreme Court’s inherent powers, including curative and review jurisdictions.

I) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. The Registry lacks jurisdiction to reject curative petitions on procedural grounds like non-compliance with Order XLVIII Rule 2(1). Such decisions require judicial scrutiny.
2. Curative jurisdiction aims to prevent gross miscarriages of justice and operates beyond procedural rigidity.

b) Obiter Dicta

1. The court emphasized the necessity for procedural flexibility in addressing curative petitions to uphold substantive justice.

c) Guidelines

1. Judicial Oversight: Maintainability of curative petitions must be determined by a judicial bench, not the Registry.
2. Registry Procedure: Registrars should forward non-compliant curative petitions to chamber judges for directions rather than reject them outright.
3. Compliance Requests: Petitioners should include applications seeking exemption from procedural deficiencies.

J) CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS

This case reaffirms the balance between procedural rules and substantive justice in curative jurisdiction. It underscores the need for judicial intervention to mitigate procedural technicalities that might obstruct the delivery of justice.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, [(2002) 4 SCC 388].
2. Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, [(2014) 9 SCC 737].
3. Union of India v. M/s Union Carbide Corporation, [Curative Petition Nos. 345-347 of 2010].

Statutes Referred:

1. Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
2. Constitution of India.
3. Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993.