Brindco Sales Private Limited vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3487 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3487 P&H
Judgement Date : 20 March, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Brindco Sales Private Limited vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 20 March, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                               Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038490-DB




RA-CW-125-2025
          2025 (O&M)

                                  Page 1 of 3

101
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CM-4194-CWP-2025 in/and
                                                  RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025
BRINDCO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED
                                                                . . . . Petitioner
                                      Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
                                                             . . . . Respondentss
                                 ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
                                 ****
Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab (through VC)
         Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab
         for the review applicants/respondents.
            Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with
            Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate
            Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate
            Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate
            for the non-applicant/petitioner.
                    non
                                    ****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. Matter comes up on application No. No.CM-4194-CWP-2025 seeking

preponement of the review petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Review

Petition No. RA-CW-125-2025 is taken on board today itself.

3. Heard learned counsel for the State. He submits that the order dated

10.01.2025 passed by this Court deserves to be reviewed, as this Court

has failed to take notice of the fact that even against the company, case

was registered.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038490-DB

RA-CW-125-2025 2025 (O&M)

4. For the said purpose, he has has handed over a report which is essentially

an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) wherein the name of

the company has been mentioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)

authorities.

5. We find that the review petition is wholly misconceived.

6. From the perusal of the ECIR placed on record as Annexure R R-5/1, 5/1, we

find that mentioning of M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. is through the

Director. The said document was neither part of the record of the writ

petition, nor of the reply.

7. The aforesaid facts, in our opinion, opinion, do not change the reasoning arrived

at by us.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs.

State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. ; 2024(2) SCC 362 362, on the scope of filing

the review application/petition, held has under:

under:-

"15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others ; (2021) 3 SCC 1, held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co co-

ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

16. stated decisions is that:

The gist of the afore-stated

(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 self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038490-DB

RA-CW-125-2025 2025 (O&M)

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 decisi 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. already

(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 long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinion opinions.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate co ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review"