Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Banmore Electricals Pvt Ltd Through ... vs Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10194
1 RP-754-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 754 of 2025
M/S BANMORE ELECTRICALS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed
by the review petitioner assailing the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in
Arbitration Case No.84/2023, whereby this Court had dismissed the
application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
on the ground of limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order has
sought review of the order on the ground that the notices dated 11.07.2013
and 19.09.2013 were quashed in the proceedings initiated by the Review
Petitioner and lastly, an opportunity was granted by the Writ Appellate Court
in W.A. No.1107/2020 vide order dated 06.02.2023 to approach before
appropriate forum against the demand raised and as the petitioner had resort
of Section 14 of Limitation Act, but aforesaid aspect appears to have been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10194
2 RP-754-2025
skipped consideration, therefore, the order impugned herein deserves to be
reviewed and recalled and the arbitration case is required to be heard on its
merits.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent Shri
Raghvendra Dixit by placing reliance in the matters of Rudrapal Singh
Bhadoria vs. Arvind Kumar and Ors passed in R.P. No.261/2024 dated
28.01.2025 and in the matter of Harshvardhan Singh Rajpoot vs. Vikram
Singh Rajpoot and Ors passed in R.P. No.92/2025 dated 27.01.2025 has
argued that while considering scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w
Section 114 of CPC, this Court has already held that repetition of old and
overruled arguments are not enough to reopen concluded adjudications as the
review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
It has also been argued that this Court while considering the aforesaid
matters has concluded that the review is not maintainable unless material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results
in miscarriage of justice and since review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies
only for patent error and as it is not the case herein and the petitioner is trying
to agitate the matter on merits again, the present review petition is not
maintainable and entertainable. Thus, had prayed for dismissal of the present
review petition.
4. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. This Court time and again has reiterated the fact that the scope of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC are very
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10194
3 RP-754-2025
limited. In umpteen number of cases this Court as well as the Apex Court
has held that a review application would be maintainable only on (i)
discovery of any new and important matters or evidence which, after
exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or
could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made:
(ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
or (iii) for any other sufficient reason and when any of the eventualities as
discussed above exists, then an order can be recalled and reviewed but since
none of the eventualities exists in the present matter, according to this Court,
the present review cannot be said to be maintainable, as law with regard to
accrual of any rights in favour of person who has been later on appointed in
place of a person whose termination is held to be illegal later on is very well
settled.
6. In a very recent judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Govt. of
NCT of Delhi and another Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others reported
in (2023) 9 SCC 757, wherein in while referring to its another decision in the
matter of Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. reported in
(2013)8 SCC 337; had delineated on some of the grounds as to when the
review will not maintainable, which are reproduced herein as under:-
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough
to reopen concluded adjudications,
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import,
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case,
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness
or results in miscarriage of justice,
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10194
4 RP-754-2025
an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only
for patent error,
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot
be a ground for review,
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not
be an error which has to be fished out and searched,
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition, and
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought
at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that there is
no sum and substance in the present review petition, therefore, the same is
hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
