LexSANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL versus STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 225 : 2023 INSC 963 225 CASE DETAILS SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR. (Review Petition (Civil) No.1620 of 2023) In (Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020) OCTOBER 31, 2023 [A. S. BOPANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: A Batch of fi ve Review Petitions was fi led by the Review Petitioners, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. Whether the Review Petitioners were able to make out any case within the ambit of Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, read with Order XLVII of CPC, for reviewing the impugned judgment. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. XLVII – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII – Review Petitioners placed heavy reliance on the observations made by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 7976 of 2019 (Paschim Anchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Raman Ispat Private Limited and Others) and submitted that the court in the impugned judgment had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism contained in Section 53, as also failed to consider other provisions of the IBC – Propriety: Held: The said submission of the review petitioners was outrightly rejected for the simple reason that any passing reference of the impugned judgment made by the Bench of the equal strength could not be a ground for review – It is well settled proposition of law that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of the same strength – If a Bench does not accept as correct the decision on a question of law of another Bench of 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. equal strength, the only proper course to adopt would be to refer the matter to the larger Bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise the law would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by reason of confl icting decisions – The submissions made by the Review Petitioners that the court in the impugned decision had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism as contained in s.53 and failed to consider other provisions of IBC, are factually incorrect – As evident from the bare reading of the impugned judgment, the Court had considered not only the Waterfall mechanism u/s. 53 of IBC but also the other provisions of the IBC for deciding the priority for the purpose of distributing the proceeds from the sale as liquidation assets – Therefore, the well-considered judgment sought to be reviewed does not fall within the scope and ambit of Review. [Paras 20, 24, 27] Review – Grounds of Review: Held: (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is fi nal, and departure from that principle is justifi ed only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so; (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review; (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”; (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”; (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided; (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions; (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. [Para 16] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others [2021] 1 SCR 681 : (2021) 3 SCC 1 – followed. 227 Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470 : (1997) 8 SCC 715; Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and Others [2019] 16 SCR 252 : (2020) 2 SCC 677; Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others (2021) 13 SCC 1; Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.