R.G. Scientific Enterprises ... vs Emami Foundation
2022 Latest Caselaw 6677 Cal

16.09.2022
 KC(2)

                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

                                 R.V.W. 98 of 2022
                     R.G. Scientific Enterprises Private Limited
                                      -versus-
                                Emami Foundation
                                          In
                               F.M.A.T. 564 of 2021


             Mr.   Srijib Chakraborty,
             Mr.   Amritam Mandal,
             Mr.   Rohit Banerjee,
             Mr.   Aditya Mondal..................For the review applicant/
                                                 respondent.

Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Mr. Sushorit Dutt Majumder, Ms. Pubali Sinha Chowdhury, Mr. Dwarka Nath Chattopadhyay...For the respondent/ appellant.

The judgment and order of which review is sought

was made by us on 17th May, 2022. This application for

review is sought to be moved today.

By that judgment and order the applicant was

directed to provide security of Rs. 6 crores deposited in

two branches of Rs. 3 crores each by 15th June, 2022

and 15th August, 2022 with the Joint Receivers

appointed in the order. The said officers were directed to

invest the amount in a term deposit with the State Bank

of India, Kolkata High Court Special Branch. There was

a default clause, which permitted the Joint Receivers to

take immediate possession of the demised premises.

Admittedly, no deposit has been made by the

applicant in terms of the said order.

In support of this review application Mr.

Chakraborty, learned advocate tried to canvass various

points which concern the merits of the matter. For

example, he submitted that the court had no basis to

order a deposit of Rs. 6 crores. He also tried to submit

that the court had no power to direct the Joint

Receivers to take possession of the demised premises.

In our opinion these are not the grounds available

in a review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. These, if at all, may be the

grounds of appeal to a higher court, which proceeding

the applicant has not preferred.

The principle is that a particular court after

disposal of a matter is not allowed to reopen the case

and to substitute one view for another or keep on

making modifications of its own order. Once the matter

is finally disposed of it is final and binding on the

parties as well as on the court unless the limited

grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code or

instances of fraud or gross mis-representation are

brought to the notice of the court.

Now, at this point of time, Mr. Chakraboty

submits on instruction that his client is willing to

deposit Rs. 6 crores with the Joint Receivers within ten

days.

In exercise of our power to implement our order,

we accede to such prayer by granting the review

applicant time till 29th September, 2022 to make the

deposit of Rs. 6 crores, as directed by our order dated

17th May, 2022, which the Joint Receivers shall accept

and take steps in terms of our said order. We clarify

that save and except the date of of making the deposit

of Rs. 6 crores, our order dated 17th May, 2022 remains

unaltered.

The review application (R.V.W. 98 of 2022) is

disposed of.

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)

(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)