LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/municipal-corporation-of-greater-mumbai-anr-vs-pratibha-industries-ltd-ors-20181204/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. vs Pratibha Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 December 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 11822 of 2018
Result
Disposed
Bench
R.F. Nariman, M.R. Shah
Citation
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1143 : 2018 INSC 1151
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1143 : 2018 INSC 1151
Headnote

High Courts – Power to recall its order – Appellant issued Tender Notice for supply, installation and maintenance of water meters – Tender Notice was accepted and parties entered into an agreement, which included a clause (cl.13 of the General Conditions of Contract) stating that “13.1 No Arbitration was allowed” – Respondent filed an application u/s. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunction, which was allowed – Thereafter on the next date of hearing, a sole Arbitrator was appointed with the consent of both the parties – Recall application filed by the appellant stating that the concerned officer of the appellant-Municipal Corporation was not empowered to take decision regarding appointment of Arbitrator – Single Judge of the High Court recalled the order observing that clause 13 of the General Conditions of Contract and clause 22 of the Tender Notice were not arbitration clauses – Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge on ground that there was no provision in Part-I of the Act for any Court to review its own order – On appeal, held: High Courts are courts of record, set up u/Art.215 of the Constitution – These constitutional courts, being courts of record, the jurisdiction to recall their own orders is inherent by virtue of the fact that they are superior courts of record – If any apparent error is noticed by the High court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it – Impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Constitution of India – Art.215 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.9.

National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. [1953] SCR 1028 ; Shivdev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others AIR 1963 SC 1909 ; M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 1 SCC

666 : [2000] 1 SCR 33 – relied on.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal raises questions relatable to the High Court’s power of recall of its orders. 3. By a Tender Notice dated 19.09.2008, supply, installation and maintenance of water meters of various sizes were called for. The Tender Notice contained Clause 22, which reads as under:“22. Jurisdiction of Courts: In case of any claim, dispute or difference arising in respect of the contract, the cause of action thereof shall be deemed to have arisen in Mumbai and all legal proceedings in respect of any such cl
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →