Madras High Court
M/S.Nova Techset Limited vs Mr.J.Sriram on 23 March, 2023
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
in
W.P.Nos.25679 of 2008 & 8588 of 2009
and
W.M.P.Nos.34415, 34411 of 2022
1.M/s.Nova Techset Limited,
(Formerly Known as Techset Composition India(P) Ltd. )
'Mini Mac Centre', 3rd and 4th Floor,
No.118, Arcot Road,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. ...Petitioner in both the
Review Applications
vs.
1. Mr.J.Sriram
2. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electrictiy Board,
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002.
3. The Executive Engineer
(O & M), Guindy, Tamil Nadu,
Electricity Board, 110 KV Sub-Station
K.K. Nagar, Chennai-600033.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
4. The Asst. Executive Engineer
(O & M), Ramapuram, Tamil Nadu,
Electricity Boar, 110 KV Sub Station,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai 33. ... Respondents in both the
Review Applications
PRAYER in Review Application No.No.270 of 2022 : Review Application
filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. praying to
review the Order passed in W.P.No.25679 of 2008 dated 12.04.2022.
PRAYER in Review Application No.No.271 of 2022 : Review Application
filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. praying to
review the Order passed in W.P.No.8588 of 2009 dated 12.04.2022.
For Petitioner in both the
Review Applications : Mr.B.Kishore
For Respondents in both the
Review Applications :
(for R1) : Mr.M.Venkata Krishnan
(for R2 to R4) : Ms.Keerthana Shenoi for
Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
COMMON ORDER
The review petitions have been filed to review the order passed by
this Court in W.P. No.25679 of 2008 dated 12.04.2022 and W.P.No.8588 of
2009 dated 12.04.2022. The review petitioner is the 4th respondent in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
writ petitions. The grievance of the review petitioner is that the vital facts
which all are relevant were not adjudicated in the writ proceedings. Thus,
the petitioner has chosen to file the present review petitions.
2.The grounds raised in the review petitions reveal that the petitioner
raises several factual aspects and issues on merits. Such an adjudication
cannot be done in a review proceedings and the scope of review cannot be
expanded for re-adjudication of the issues of merits.
3.The petitioner could not establish any error apparent for the
purpose of exercising the powers of review by this Court. More so, the
counsel appeared in the writ petition has not filed the review application and
the petitioner has engaged some other counsel and filed the review
application which cannot be appreciated in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board and another Vs. Raju Reddiar and another (1997) 9 SCC 736 as
under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
“18. Learned counsel for TIIC, while reiterating the
reason for delay, which has been re-produced supra,
referred to the review petition. A perusal of the review
petition reveals that it has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Considering the narrow scope on
which the review petition and W.M.P.No. 30191 of 2017
would now turn, this Court is of the considered view that
elaborate analysis on this aspect may not be required
while considering these two petitions. Learned counsel for
TIIC submits that counsel who appeared for TIIC in the
earlier round of litigation when the writ petition came to
be disposed of this Court, did not agree for a sum of Rs.17
lakhs as bank guarantee. This is specifically set out in
paragraph No.7 of the review petition and the most
relevant portion of paragraph No.7 of the review petition
reads as follows:
“....But the Counsel did not agree for a sum
of Rs.17 lakhs as a bank guarantee and there
is no such instruction given by the
Corporation to the then counsel who
appeared in the Writ Petition. Without
instruction from the revision petitioner
Corporation, how this amount of Rs.17 lakhs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
arrived after a lapse of 15 years from the
date of payment to sales tax authorities is
http://www.judis.nic.in unacceptable and is
liable to be modified.”
19. Responding to the aforesaid submissions of
learned counsel for TIIC, Mr.PraveenS.Kumar of M/s.Rank
Associates submits that the same counsel had appeared on
behalf of Virgo in the earlier round of litigation also.
Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N.Raju Reddiar in
(1997) 9 SCC 736.
20. Learned counsel for Virgo submitted that the
practice of changing advocates and filing the such
petitions has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Be that as it may, learned counsel emphasised
counsel for TIIC who appeared in the earlier round/base
litigation did agree for a bank guarantee for aforesaid sum
and did submit before that title deeds of properties given
as collateral security will be released if bank guarantee for
aforesaid sum is furnished.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
21. It is also pointed out that it is a well established
principle that a review petition should necessarily be filed
by the same counsel who appeared in the first round of
litigation unless there are some http://www.judis.nic.in
extra-ordinary circumstances which makes it impossible
for the same counsel to file the review petition.”
4.Certain grounds raised on merits may be a ground for an appeal but
certainly cannot be entertained in a review application. This being the
factum, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review application and
accordingly, the review applications stand dismissed. Consequently, the
writ petitions are dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
23.03.2023
(Sha) (2/2)
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
Neutral citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
To
2.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electrictiy Board,
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002.
3. The Executive Engineer
(O & M), Guindy, Tamil Nadu,
Electricity Board, 110 KV Sub-Station
K.K. Nagar, Chennai-600033.
4. The Asst. Executive Engineer
(O & M), Ramapuram, Tamil Nadu,
Electricity Boar, 110 KV Sub Station,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai 33.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(Sha)
Review Application Nos.270 & 271 of 2022
in
W.P.Nos.25679 of 2008 & 8588 of 2009
23.03.2023
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
