Associated Tubewells Ltd. vs R.B. Gujarmal Modi

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 23 May 1957

Coram: Jagannadhadas, J.

In the matter of Associated Tubewells Ltd. versus R.B. Gujarmal Modi, which was reported on 23 May 1957, the Supreme Court of India heard the petition after a review application had been filed. The review petition claimed that the counsel for the petitioner had not been fully heard and had been denied a reasonable opportunity to express his arguments. The Court therefore reheard the issues that the counsel said were not duly considered. After examining the content of the rehearing, the Court expressly stated that it was not persuaded that the circumstances warranted the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not overturn its earlier decision to refuse leave.

The Court also noted that it is not the practice of this Court to provide reasons for the dismissal of an application for special leave, and it chose to maintain that practice by declining to set out the rationale for the original refusal or for the present refusal to modify that order. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant. Despite the dismissal, the Court felt compelled to record a strong disapproval of the manner in which the senior counsel, a very senior member of the Bar, had framed his review application. The counsel had set out in great detail what he alleged had transpired during the earlier hearing, including a recital of the statements made by the presiding judge and the other judges on the bench, describing each judge’s expressed views and the reasons he believed the application had been rejected. The Court described this approach as wholly improper. It clarified that while a judge’s view may be erroneous, such an error does not, by itself, constitute a ground for review. Moreover, it was improper for the counsel to assume or assert the internal reasoning of a judge when the final order did not contain such reasoning, and it was likewise improper to rely on statements made during oral arguments as a basis for seeking rehearing. The Court emphasized that judges cannot be drawn into disputes over whether the statements attributed to them accurately reflect their considerations, because remarks made in the course of tentative, open‑minded discussion may only partially capture the judges’ ultimate reasoning. Ultimately, the decisive factors that guide a judge’s order—especially when the order is delivered without reasons—may not be evident in those tentative expressions. The Court held that involving judges in such controversies would be inconsistent with the dignity of the Court and the decorum of the Bar.

In this case the Court emphasized that no course of action should be allowed which could create a dispute about what a Judge actually said in open court or about the personal view that the Judge held. The Court explained that such questions must be resolved solely by reference to the official record that has been entered in the case file. Anything that is not recorded in that official record cannot be taken as a basis for argument or used to create controversy. Allowing the courtroom atmosphere to be polluted by disagreements over unrecorded statements would harm the very foundation of the administration of justice. The Court then expressed regret that, despite an early hint from one of the members of the Court, the counsel representing the petitioner did not recognise the impropriety of the approach he pursued and nevertheless continued with that approach before the Court. The judges stated that they felt obliged to make these observations because otherwise they would have neglected their duty. Finally, the Court clarified that the comments made above did not influence, in any way, the decision on the present review application, which the Court has dismissed as previously indicated. Accordingly, the order of dismissal remains unchanged.