[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Motor & General Finance Limited vs Director General & Anr on 15 December, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 09.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on:15.12.2025
+ REVIEW PET. 615/2025 in FAO 62/2018, CM APPL. 77636/2025
MOTOR & GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
alongwith Mr. Sunil Magon,
Advocate.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL & ANR .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections
114 and 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed
by the appellant for reviewing the judgment dated 28.11.2025 in
FAO 62/2018. The review petitioner, the appellant in the first
appeal, was the petitioner before the Employees Insurance Court
(the EIC). The appeal was filed by the appellant, challenging the
judgment in ESI No. 72/16/05, whereby his petition filed under
Section 75 of the ESI Act was dismissed on the ground that the
petitioner failed to prove its claims and its own evidence showed
liability under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the ESI
Act). The appeal has been dismissed, holding that no substantial
question of law arose under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, and that
the petitioner failed to prove that the ESI Act did not apply to
them.
2. According to the review petitioner, there are errors
apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment
28.11.2025, warranting review in interest of justice. There were
material statutory amendments in Section 45A of the ESI Act,
which barred the respondent from raising any contribution demand
beyond five years. Under Regulation 32 of the Employees' State
Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (the ESI Regulation), the
employer was required to maintain employee registers for five
years only, rendering the 2011 demand for records illegal. The
petitioner's application, being CM No. 33919/2019 under Order
XLI Rule 27 CPC, was not adjudicated. Reliance was placed on
the dictum of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer
2024 (1) Apex Court Judgements (SC) 788 to state that an
electronic record, as such is used as primary evidence under
Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (the Evidence Act)
and that the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance
with the conditions in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
4. The scope of a review petition is extremely narrow to
correct an error apparent on the face of the record that vitiates the
impugned judgment. Review proceedings are not by way of an
appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC (Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170). In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri
Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, it has been held by the Apex court that a
judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or
an error apparent on the face of the record. An error that 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 the record.
The principle was further reiterated in the dictum of Sasi v.
Aravindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692 stating that review is not
an "appeal in disguise" where erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected, but lies for patent error.
5. At the outset, it is clarified that the arguments advanced by
the petitioner have been considered in the impugned judgment, and
this Court rejected those arguments and confirmed the finding of
the EIC. It is indeed true that an amendment was made to Section
45A of the ESI Act, wherein a second proviso was inserted, stating
that, provided further that no such order shall be passed by the
Corporation in respect of the period beyond five years from the
date on which the contribution shall become payable. The said
amendment came into effect from 01.06.2010. Such a plea was
never raised either before the EIC or in the appeal, or when
arguments were addressed or for that matter, in the written
submissions submitted. It is settled law that the period of five years
under Regulation 32 of ESI Regulations is with regard to
maintenance of registers of workmen and the same cannot take
away the right of the Corporation to adjudicate, determine and fix
the liability of the employer under Section 45A of the ESI Act, in
respect of the claim other than those found in the register of
workmen, maintained and filed in terms of the Regulations. (ESI
Corpn. v. C.C. Santhakumar, 2007) 1 SCC 584.
6. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not
find any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned
judgment calling for a review. The grounds urged in the review
petition do not warrant interference, as it is merely an attempt to
re-agitate the appeal under the guise of review.
7. In the result, the review petition is dismissed.
Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 15, 2025
