Review jurisdiction is narrow: a later co-ordinate Bench view or reargument cannot reopen a concluded merits decision.

Review under Article 137 is confined to patent, self-evident error or a similarly narrow ground, and cannot be used to reargue a concluded merits decision. A later co-ordinate Bench view, by itself, does not justify review; the proper course is reference to a larger Bench. The earlier judgment had already considered the insolvency waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related provisions, so the alleged omission was unfounded. The document restates that review jurisdiction cannot reopen matters already decided on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review; (ii) whether a subsequent co-ordinate Bench decision could by itself justify review; (iii) whether the earlier judgment had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism and other relevant provisions of the insolvency law.

Issue (i): Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review.

Analysis: The power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, read with the review framework under the Supreme Court Rules and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is confined to patent error, manifest mistake, or a ground of similar narrow compass. A review cannot be used for rehearing the matter or correcting an alleged erroneous decision by a fresh appraisal. The petitioners were required to show an error that is self-evident and not one discoverable only by reasoning or debate.

Conclusion: No reviewable error on the face of the record was made out.

Issue (ii): Whether a subsequent co-ordinate Bench decision could by itself justify review.

Analysis: A later decision of a co-ordinate Bench does not, by itself, constitute a ground for review. The proper course, where a Bench doubts the correctness of an earlier co-ordinate Bench view, is reference to a larger Bench, not collateral re-agitation through review. The later observations relied upon by the review petitioners could not convert the review jurisdiction into a merits appeal.

Conclusion: The subsequent co-ordinate Bench decision did not furnish a valid ground for review.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier judgment had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism and other relevant provisions of the insolvency law.

Analysis: The earlier judgment had already considered the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, along with the relevant insolvency provisions and prior precedents. The asserted omission was factually incorrect and did not disclose any glaring or obtrusive error. The review petitions thus attempted to reargue matters already addressed and decided.

Conclusion: The earlier judgment did consider the relevant insolvency framework, and no ground for review was established.

Final Conclusion: The review jurisdiction could not be invoked to reopen a concluded merits determination, and the challenge failed to meet the strict review standard.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only for a patent and self-evident error apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used to reargue the case or to challenge a concluded judgment merely because a later co-ordinate Bench view is cited.

---