Dismissed

Union of India v. M/S. Salarpuria Properties Private Limited

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024RP/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition challenging an order dated 16.03.2016 in a writ petition. The Bench held that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause to condone a delay of 2861 days due to inordinate latches, and found no error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under CPC.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed on grounds of delay, latches, and lack of error apparent on the face of the record.

Union of India Vs M/S. Salarpuria Properties Private Limited — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9267 RP No. 63 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 63 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶10

SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED NO.3, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, 4^TH FLOOR, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O RATANLAL AGARWAL.

¶15

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.CHYTANYA.K.K, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. SHARATH .,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. E.I. SAMNATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

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.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:9267 RP No. 63 of 2024

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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.

¶24

Heard learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the 1^st respondent and learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent – revenue and perused the material on record.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:9267 RP No. 63 of 2024

¶28

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.

¶29

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the 1^st 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.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9267 RP No. 63 of 2024

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:9267 RP No. 63 of 2024

¶37

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

¶38

Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC

¶39

1406, wherein it is held as under:-

¶40

16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—

¶41

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.”

¶45

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:9267 RP No. 63 of 2024

¶48

(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.

¶49

(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.

¶50

(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.

¶51

Accordingly, on the ground of delay and latches as well

¶52

as on merits, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the review petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶53

Srl.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

Union of India v. M/S. Salarpuria Properties Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. M/S. Salarpuria Properties Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri .G. Nagaraja Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Dr Madhukar G Angur Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Srimathi Navada Vs Smt. v. Supriya

Shri K Srinivas Moorty Vs Arogyamary

Sri. Lokesh K Vs Sri Narayanappa

M/S Mckb Construction LLP Vs the State of Karnataka