Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs M/S. Salarpuria Properties Private ... on 5 March, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9267
RP No. 63 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO. 63 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
POLICY AND PROMOTION,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
UDYOG BHAVANA, NEW DELHI-110 107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.3, SALARPURIA WINDSOR,
4TH FLOOR, ULSOOR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Digitally signed S/O RATANLAL AGARWAL.
by
LEELAVATHI S
R 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
COURT OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI,
KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHYTANYA.K.K, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S. SHARATH .,ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. E.I. SAMNATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 AND 2 READ
WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO (A) TO ALLOW THE REVIEW
PETITION BY REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED IN
W.P. NO. 3574/2010 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9267
RP No. 63 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 16.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.3574/2010, whereby the said
petition along with connected matters were disposed of by the
learned Single Judge.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner
and learned Senior counsel for the 1st respondent and learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent - revenue and perused the material
on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in
the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the
Affidavit in support of the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review
Petition in order to contend that on account of the reasons stated
therein, the delay on the part of the petitioner to file the present
review petition within the prescribed period was due to bonafide
reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. It was
NC: 2024:KHC:9267
also submitted that there are several errors apparent on the face of
the record in the impugned order warranting interference by this
Court in the present petition and as such, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st
respondent - writ petitioner would reiterate the various contentions
urged in the statement of objections and submit that neither valid
nor sufficient ground had been made out by the petitioner to seek
condonation of delay in filing the review petition. It is also
submitted that there are no errors apparent on the face of the
record and the impugned order does not warrant interference in the
present petition, which is liable to be dismissed.
5. A perusal of the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1
filed for condonation of delay by the review petitioner will indicate
that except stating that certain deliberations were held after
passing the impugned order during the period 2016-17, no
explanation whatsoever, much less satisfactory explanation as
regards the delay between 2017 upto 14.02.2024 when the present
review petition was filed has been urged by the petitioner. It is
relevant to state that the writ petition in W.P.No.6165/2022 having
NC: 2024:KHC:9267
been filed more than two years prior to filing the present review
petition, no reasons have been assigned as to why the review
petition was not filed earlier by the petitioner. In fact, it was only
after arguments in W.P.No.6165/2022 had commenced that the
review petitioner filed the present review petition. It is therefore
clear that neither valid nor sufficient ground had been made out by
the petitioner to seek condonation of delay of 2861 days in filing the
review petition and the conduct of the petitioner disentitles it from
any indulgence in the present review petition, which is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone.
6. It is relevant to state that a perusal of the impugned
order will clearly indicate that the same does not fall within the
parameters contained in Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution of India warranting review of the
impugned order. Even otherwise on merits, a perusal of the
impugned order and the various contentions urged in the review
petition is sufficient to come to the sole conclusion that the
impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court in the
light of the parameters governing exercise of review jurisdiction as
held by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs.
NC: 2024:KHC:9267
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.
(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."
NC: 2024:KHC:9267
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to re-agitate 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.
7. Accordingly, on the ground of delay and latches as well
as on merits, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the
impugned order and the review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srl.
