Bakshi & Co vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax Lucknow U.P on 3 March 2005

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2005 SC 522, 2005 (12) SCC 398
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal, Arun Kumar
CASE NO.:
Review Petition (civil) 1005 of 2004

PETITIONER:
BAKSHI & CO.

RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LUCKNOW U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/2005

BENCH:
R.C. LAHOTI CJI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE & Y.K. SABHARWAL & RUMA PAL & ARUN KUMAR

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 2005 (12 ) SCC 398 Curative Petition (C) No. 108 of 2004 in in SLP (C) No. 4948 of 2004

1. We have carefully perused the contents of the curative petition.

2. As held in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388 curative petitions ought to be treated as a rarity. Such a petition may be entertained ex debito justitiae if the petitioner has made out a case of violation of the principles of natural justice, in that he was not a party to the lis but the judgment adversely affected his interests or, if he was a party to the lis, he was not served with notice of the proceedings and the matter proceeded as if he had notice, or where in the proceedings a learned Judge failed to disclose his connection with the subject-matter or the parties giving scope for an apprehension of bias and the judgment adversely affects the petitioner.

3. The curative petition is accompanied by a certificate from Senior Advocate. The certificate does not specifically set out which of the grounds, if any, for entertaining the curative petition is available in the case. Thus, the certification does not fulfil the requirement laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra case (supra)

4. No case is made out for entertaining the petition within the parameters laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra case (supra) The curative petition is dismissed in limine.