Dismissed¶43

Brindco Sales Private Limited v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2025RA-CW/125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M) by State of Punjab against order dated 10.01.2025 in writ petition of Brindco Sales Private Limited; ground: ECIR (Annexure R-5/1) showing case registered against company; ECIR mention found to be through Director and document absent from writ record and reply; scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; error apparent on face of record; review not an appeal in disguise; relies on Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., 2024(2) SCC 362 quoting Beghar Foundation, (2021) 3 SCC 1; review petition dismissed, pending applications disposed of (decided 20.03.2025).

What did the court decide?

None; review petition dismissed and all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ¶43

Brindco Sales Private Limited Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; review petition dismissed and all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by this Court in the writ petition deserves to be reviewed on the ground that a case was registered even against the company, as evidenced by an ECIR mentioning the company. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The review petition is wholly misconceived.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Mentioning of M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. in the ECIR placed on record as Annexure R-5/1 is through the Director, and the said document was neither part of the record of the writ petition nor of the reply.

¶24

Key takeaways

The aforesaid facts (ECIR mention through the Director; document absent from writ record and reply) do not change the reasoning arrived at by the Court.ratio¶25
No case for review is made out.ratio¶41
Neither is there any error of fact nor any error of law in passing of the order in the writ petition.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma & Sanjay Vashisth, JJ., oral) — RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M) with CM-4194-CWP-2025 (preponement application allowed; review petition taken on board the same day) — State of Punjab sought review of this Court's order dated 10.01.2025 in the writ petition of Brindco Sales Private Limited, contending the Court had failed to notice that a case stood registered even against the company, and handing over an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) mentioning the company — Held: the review petition is wholly misconceived; per the ECIR at Annexure R-5/1, M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. is mentioned only through the Director, and the ECIR was neither part of the writ record nor of the reply; these facts do not change the earlier reasoning; relying on Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., 2024(2) SCC 362 (which quotes Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 1), change in law or subsequent decisions of co-ordinate/larger Benches is not a ground for review, an error must be apparent on the face of the record, and review is not 'an appeal in disguise'; there is neither error of fact nor error of law in the order under review — Review petition dismissed; all pending applications disposed of accordingly. Decided 20.03.2025.

¶1

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

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

101

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CM-4194-CWP-2025 in/and RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2025

¶6

BRINDCO S A LES PRIVATE LIMITED

¶7

. . . . Petitione r Vs.

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

¶9

. . . . Respondent s

¶10

****

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶12

¶13

Present: M r. Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab (through VC) M r. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G . , Punjab f or the review applicants/respon d ents. M r. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate w i th M r. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, A d vocate M r. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate M r. Gagandeep Singh, Advocat e f or the non-applicant/petitioner.

¶14

¶15

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶16

Matter comes up on application N o .CM-4194-CWP-2025 seekin g prepon e ment of the review petition.

¶17

For th e reasons stated in the applicati o n, the same is allowed. Revie w Petitio n No. RA-CW-125-2025 is take n on board today itself.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the State. H e submits that the order date d 10.01. 2 025 passed by this Court deser v es to be reviewed, as this Cour t has fai l ed to take notice of the fact tha t even against the company, cas e was re g istered.

¶19

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

For th e said purpose, he has handed o v er a report which is essentiall y an Enf o rcement Case Information Rep o rt (ECIR) wherein the name o f the co m pany has been mentioned by t h e Enforcement Directorate (ED ) authori t ies.

¶23

We fin d that the review petition is who l ly misconceived.

¶24

From t h e perusal of the ECIR placed o n record as Annexure R-5/1, w e find that mentioning of M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. is through th e Direct o r. The said document was neit h er part of the record of the wri t petitio n , nor of the reply.

¶25

The af o resaid facts, in our opinion, do n ot change the reasoning arrive d at by u s .

¶26

The H o n’ble Supreme Court in the cas e of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs .

¶27

State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. ; 2024(2) SCC 362, on the scope of filin g the rev i ew application/petition, held ha s under:-

¶28

“15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the C onstitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others ; (2021) 3 SCC 1, held that e ven the change in law or subsequ e nt decision/ judgment of co- o rdinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

¶29

16. The gist of the afore- s tated decisions is that: (i) A judgment is open to r e view inter alia if there is a m istake or an error apparent on th e face of the record.

¶30

(ii) A judgment pronounce d by the Court is final, and d eparture from that principle is justified only when c ircumstances of a substantial an d compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶31

(iii) An error which is no t self-evident and has to be d etected by a process of reasoning , can hardly be said to be an

¶32

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

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

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

e rror apparent on the face of re c ord justifying the court to e xercise its power of review.

¶36

(iv) In exercise of the jurisd i ction under Order 47 Rule 1 C PC, it is not permissible for a n erroneous decision to be " reheard and corrected."

¶37

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot b e allowed to be "an appeal in dis g uise."

¶38

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be p ermitted to reagitate and rearg u e the questions which have a lready been addressed and decide d .

¶39

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an e rror which, mere looking at the record should strike and it s hould not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the p oints where there may conceivabl y be two opinions.

¶40

(viii) Even the change in l aw or subsequent decision/ j u dgment of a co-ordinate or larg e r Bench by itself cannot be r egarded as a ground for review”