1996 INSC 1504
Speed Ways Picture Pvt Ltd
v.
U O I
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE JUSTICE S. P. BHARUCHA HON'BLE JUSTICE S. C. SEN
Civil Appeal No. 13337 Of 1996 | 23-10-1996

1. Special leave granted.

2. On 28-6-1995 a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay passed an
order dismissing the appellants' writ petition in terms of the "minutes of order"
tendered by counsel for the parties. It is the appellants' case that the statement
made in the first clause of the "minutes of order" was not correct in that the
judgments mentioned therein were inapplicable to the facts of their case.
Accordingly, the appellants filed a review petition. Upon the review petition the
order under challenge was passed

3. The order under challenge states that the order dated 28-6-1995 "was passed
on the basis of the consent of the parties, which was recorded in the minutes of
the order duly signed by the senior counsel for the parties". The review petition
was, therefore, not maintainable

4. The notice on the SLP stated that the matter might be disposed of at the SLP
stage itself. The notice has been served, but the respondents have not put in an
appearance

5. The basis upon which the review petition was decided is, in our view, not
correct. Counsel for the appellants and the respondents put it in writing that a
judgment of this Court and a Full Bench judgment of the High Court covered
the matter. The writ petition in that High Court could, therefore, not succeed.
This could save been orally stated and recorded by the Court As a courtesy to
the Court, the practice of long standing is to put statements such as these in
writing in the form of "minutes of order" which are tendered and on the basis of

                           1  SpotLaw
which the Court passes the order : "Order in terms of minutes". The signatures
of counsel upon "minutes of order" are intended for identification so as to make
the order binding upon the parties' counsel represented. An order in terms of
minutes is an order in invitum, not a consent order. It is appealable and may be
reviewed

6. It would be a different matter if the order of the court was passed on "Consent
Terms", i.e., on a statement above the signatures of counsel which expressly
stated it was "by consent". The order of the court in such event would read :
"Order in terms of consent terms"

7. The order under challenge, made on the basis that the order dated 28-6-1995
dismissing the writ petition was a consent order must, therefore, be set aside and
the review petition remanded to the High Court to be considered afresh on
merits. We express no view whatsoever on the merits of the review petition

8. The appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the review
petition is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard afresh on merits. It
is made clear that the condonation of delay in filing the review petition is not
affected by this order

9. No order as to costs.

2  SpotLaw