Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW     PETITION     (C)     NO.     739     OF     2012                              

IN

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     7944     OF     2010   

Union of India         ....   Petitioner(s)

Versus

Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.              ....  Respondent(s)

                           WITH

REVIEW     PETITION     (C)     NOs.106,     107,     108     OF     2012       IN

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     7944     OF     2010   

WITH

     REVIEW     PETITION     (C)     NOs.     655-662     OF     2011   IN

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOs.     7945-7946     &     7948-7953     OF     2010   

WITH

     REVIEW     PETITION     (C)     NOs.     1642-1645     OF     2011   IN

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOs.     7955,     7957,     7960     &     7961     OF     2010   

1

Page 2

                     O     R     D     E     R      

1) At the foremost, we have carefully gone through the  

review petition filed by the Union of India and the connected  

papers and heard the arguments of Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,  

learned Attorney General.  The main ground for review raised  

by learned Attorney General is that the Union of India was not  

duly served with the notice of the proceedings in any of the  

petition for special leave to appeal which were subsequently  

converted into civil appeals.  In addition to the claim of the  

learned Attorney General, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate-on-Record  

for the Union of India, in his letter dated 06.09.2012,  

addressed to the Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of India,  

has highlighted that since the counsel appearing for the  

original appellants contended that the Union of India was duly  

served and the office report shows that there was proof of  

delivery duly signed, he requested the Registrar (Judicial) to  

verify the correct position and ascertain whether the office  

report is correct and whether it can be said that there is proof  

of service on the Union of India.     

2) In view of the above assertion on behalf of the Union of  

India about the defective service, we called for a Report from  

2

Page 3

the Registry.  We received a Report dated 26.09.2012 from  

Registrar (Judicial-I) about the service and the office report for  

the same.  The Report states that the notice was indeed not  

served to “Ministry of Mines”  which is a respondent in these  

cases, rather it was served to “Ministry of Coal and Mines”  

which is not in existence.  On the basis of the information  

furnished by the Registry and the assertion of learned Attorney  

General, we are satisfied that the office reports have  

erroneously stated that the “notice is complete/notice is duly  

served”.

3) The principles of natural justice embody the right to every  

person to represent his interest to the court of justice.  

Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of  

the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to  

represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of  

natural justice.

4) In the case on hand, though during the course of hearing,  

a reference was made as to the presence of learned Attorney  

General by learned senior counsel for the respondents, as  

mentioned above, we are satisfied that the Union of India was  

3

Page 4

not given an opportunity to represent its case due to mistake  

on the part of the Registry.  Applying the well settled principles  

governing a review petition and giving our anxious and careful  

consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we  

have come to the conclusion that the review petition filed by  

the Union of India should be admitted on the basis of the  

above reasoning.

5) As far as review petitions filed by JSW Steel Ltd, M/s  

Kalyani Steels Ltd, M/s Kalyani Steel Mills Ltd. and the State  

of Karnataka are concerned, we are not passing any orders  

until the review petition of the Union of India is heard.   

     ...…………………………………J.                  (P. SATHASIVAM)

...…………………………………J.   (H.L. DATTU)    

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 4, 2012

4