Karnataka High Court
M/S. Goms Electricals Private Limited vs M/S. Indelecsa India Pvt. Ltd on 3 June, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18947
RP No. 219 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.219 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. GOMS ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.43,
1ST MAIN ROAD, RK NAGAR,
MANDAVELI, CHENNAI-600028.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
ESAKKI PILLAI GOMS
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. INDELECSA INDIA PVT. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR VINOD VISWANATHAN,
SANGAM, #1475/1A, GROUND FLOOR,
Digitally
signed by 13TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT CTOR1,
Vandana S BENGALURU-560102.
Location: REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
HIGH COURT SRI. VINOD VISHWANATHAN.
OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULES 1 & 2 R/W
SECTION 114 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND R/W ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW ORDER
DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.No.7467/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18947
RP No. 219 of 2024
ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 01.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.7467/2024, whereby the said
petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and
perused the material on record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner
and perused the material on record including the impugned order in
the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu
vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat - Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated
03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan - (2023)
SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana
Reddy - Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and
the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay
Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer -2023 SCC Online SC
1406, wherein it is held as under:-
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:--
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
NC: 2024:KHC:18947
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified 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.
4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do
not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and
decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the
NC: 2024:KHC:18947
record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the
Apex Court.
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is
devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV
