J. Venkatesan

New Delhi , Sept. 9

IN an unprecedented action, the Supreme Court recalled its own judgment within minutes after it was pronounced this morning giving relief in excise duty of Rs 803 crore to ITC Ltd.

A Bench of Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi had reserved the judgment in December last. Today, Ms Justice Ruma Pal was sitting with Mr Justice Arun Kumar.

After she delivered the judgment in the packed court hall allowing the appeals filed by ITC, the order was given to counsel to have a look, though Mr Justice Reddi had not signed it. She told counsel that some corrections had to be carried out. But suddenly the order vanished from the court hall as counsel had taken it out.

Even as counsel for the company and officials were jubilant over the judgment, it was shortlived. The news of the tobacco major winning a major legal battle pushed up the price of its share in the stock market. But after the judgment was recalled, the prices dropped.

When Ms Justice Ruma Pal came to know that the order was missing from the court even before the other Judge had signed it, she called for counsel. Though he came and explained the circumstances how the order came out along with the case bundle, the Judge refused to accept it and told him "the order is being recalled. The judgment is now reserved. Further orders on the matter would be passed in consultation with Mr Justice Reddi." Had the order not been recalled, Mr Justice Reddi would have signed the judgment during the course of the day. The Judge was so infuriated over this incident, she retired to her chambers and came back for the regular hearing after a few minutes.

In the afternoon, counsel, realising his folly gave in writing explaining the circumstances under which the order was mistakenly taken out along with other case papers. He tendered an apology for the lapse. Till the Judges rose for the day, no action was taken on this application.

The case is listed for further orders tomorrow.

ITC counsel denied that the order was taken out deliberately for photocopying. They said it was a bona fide mistake and had been clearly explained to the Judge.

In the light of this development, senior lawyers told Business Line that there were three options available before the Judges: they might accept the apology and release the judgment, as it is; initiate contempt proceedings against the counsel concerned; or refer the matter to a larger Bench for adjudication.

The Excise Department had made the demand on the basis that ITC had sold its cigarettes at a price higher than the maximum retail price (MRP) printed on the packets. The department had said that the wholesale and secondary dealers margin were so compressed by ITC that the cigarettes had to be sold by the retailers at a price higher than the MRP . While ITC had questioned the demand that was upheld by the CEGAT with minor reliefs, the department had challenged the relief given to ITC by the tribunal.