Kerala High Court
Seven Seas Distillery Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 750 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN W.A NO.838 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
M/S AMRUT DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD
CHULLIMADA, PAMPALLAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, VINEETH P.,
PIN - 678621
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 EXCISE INSPECTOR
M/S AMRUT DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD., CHULLIMADA, PAMPAMPALLAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 678621
ADV.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2025 ALONG WITH
RP.772/2025, 775/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 772 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN W.A NO.815 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
POLSONS DISTILLERY
MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR. PAUL ANTO PERINCHERY., PIN - 680309
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,
PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
POLSONS DISTILLERY, MURINGOOR,
CHALAKUDY, PIN - 680309
ADV.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2025, ALONG WITH
RP.750/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 775 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN W.A NO.831 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
NORMANDY BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD
CHEEMENI, CHERUVATHUR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,MR. ARUN JOSEPH, PIN - 671313
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 EXCISE INSPECTOR, NORMANDY BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES PVT.
LTD., CHEEMENI, CHERUVATHUR (VIA),KASARGOD DISTRICT,, PIN -
671313
4 DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671313
ADV.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2025, ALONG WITH
RP.750/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 782 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN W.A NO.830 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SEVEN SEAS DISTILLERY PVT. LTD
MANNUTHY P. O., THRISSUR - ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER MR. ARUN A. V.,
PIN - 680651
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
3 INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
M/S SEVEN SEAS DISTILLERY PVT. LTD.,
MANNUTHY P. O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
ADV.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2025, ALONG WITH
RP.750/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 795 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN W.A NO.808 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
T. R. VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED 70 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, ELITE DISTILLERIES AND BEVERAGES COMPANY,
KIRALOOR P.O., MUNDOOR, TRISSUR -, PIN - 680541
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
ELITE DISTILLERIES AND BEVERAGES COMPANY,
KIRALOOR P.O., MUNDOOR, TRISSUR, PIN - 680541
ADV.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2025, ALONG WITH
RP.750/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 798 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN W.A NO.837 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
DEVICOLAM DISTILLERIES LTD.
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MR. ABHILASH P.,
PIN - 682030
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 EXCISE INSPECTOR,DEVICOLAM DISTILLERIES LTD.
KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
ADV.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2025, ALONG WITH
RP.750/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
7
Common Order
Muralee Krishna, J.
These review petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the respective
review petitioners-respondents in W.A.Nos.808, 815, 830, 831,
837 and 838 of 2024, seeking review of the common judgment
dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the writ appeals
were allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments passed by
the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions which were under
challenge in the writ appeals.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review
petitioners/respondents and the learned Senior Government
Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners-
respondents argued that the respective Excise Inspectors deputed
to the distilleries of the review petitioners-respondents though
ought to have been present in the distilleries from morning to
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
evening to supervise the manufacturing and other allied activities
of liquor in those establishments, have not been present for the
whole day, since only an additional charge was given to them. The
finding of this Court, based on the submission of the learned
Senior Government Pleader in paragraph 12 of the judgment that
the officers would be present in the distilleries from morning to
evening to supervise the manufacturing and other allied activities
of liquor in those establishments is an error apparent on the face
of the record occurred due to non appraisal of full facts at the time
of hearing the appeals. Even after the passing of the common
judgment in the appeals, the respondents have received the
amount to the extent of the charge allowance payable to the
Excise Inspector in one of the cases, and the document pertaining
to the same is produced as Annexure D in RP No.782 of 2025.
Therefore, the judgment passed by this Court is liable to be
reviewed.
4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
Pleader would argue that statutorily, the Excise officers should be
present in the distillery to supervise the manufacturing and other
allied activities for the whole time. If any of the officers are absent,
there may be sufficient reason for the same, and it cannot be
taken as a ground to review the judgment. The learned Senior
Government Pleader further submitted that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.
5. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court to
exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through
the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down
by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Section
114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as
the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.
6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:
"114. Review-
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself
aggrieved-
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by
this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by
this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court
may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
"1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to
the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
Explanation-
The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the
judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in
any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment."
8. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on
setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner.
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
9. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
[(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise of
review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
10. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
[(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 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 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 the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it
must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(Underline supplied)
11. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15
SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search,
and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal
in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter
on merits.
12. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair
and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in
order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-
evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
13. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State
Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex
Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held
thus:
"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of
review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions, which have already been
addressed and decided".
14. The dictum in Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] is
reiterated by the Apex Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya v.
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
Integrated Sales Service Ltd. [(2023) 8 SCC 11]. Again, in
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. [2024 SCC
Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the grounds for
review in detail and held thus:
"Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114,
CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under
S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be
exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on
setting up by the review petitioner any of the following
grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason."
15. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC
OnLine 212] in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S.,
J], after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent
on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction
is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing
of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing
an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
16. The issue involved in the writ appeals pertained to the
cost of establishment payable to the Government by the private
distilleries for deploying Excise officials to supervise the
manufacturing of liquor and allied activities. The review
petitioners-respondents contended in the writ petitions as well as
in the appeals that the cost of establishment payable was only
the charge allowances payable under Section 53(b) of Part I of
Kerala Service Rules. On the other hand, the Government
contended that the cost of establishment payable was the full pay
and allowances payable to the post of officers deployed. After a
detailed analysis of law on the point, this Court found that the
cost of establishment payable was the full pay and allowances
payable to the post of officers deployed. Hence, the impugned
judgments passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ
petitions were set aside by allowing the appeals.
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
17. The contention raised by the review petitioners-
respondents is that though the statute mandates the presence of
the Excise Inspectors also in the distilleries from morning to
evening to supervise the manufacturing and other allied activities,
the Excise Inspectors were not present, since additional charge
alone was given to those officers by the Government.
Interestingly, the review petitioners have no case that this Court
has erred in holding that, as per the statute, the officials have to
be present in the distilleries from morning to evening. The
contention of the review petitioners-respondents is that the Excise
inspectors are not attending the distilleries during the whole time
of manufacturing and other allied activities, in violation of the
statutory mandate. If any of the officers are absent during the
hours of work and that causes loss to the activities of the
distilleries, the remedy of the review petitioners-respondents is
not non payment of the cost of establishment to the Government.
In such circumstances, it is clear that there is no error apparent
2025:KER:56424
R.P Nos.750, 772, 775, 782,
795 and 798 of 2025
on the face of the record in the judgment. It appears from the
nature of the contentions raised by the petitioners that they are
now trying to use the review jurisdiction of this Court as an appeal
in disguise, which is not permissible under law.
18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient
reason to say that the petitioners have made out any of the
grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to review the judgment dated
19.05.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeals.
In the result, the review petitions stand dismissed. All
pending interlocutory applications stand closed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
