Review jurisdiction turns on patent error and direct inconsistency; distinguishing precedent preserved Company Court control over the sale process.

Review jurisdiction is narrow, and non-consideration of an earlier Supreme Court decision is an error apparent only when the omitted ruling is directly contrary to the judgment under review and the conflict is patent without detailed reasoning. Where the precedent would require factual comparison or advanced argument, its omission does not justify review. On the facts, the earlier Supreme Court ruling on exclusive recovery jurisdiction was distinguished because winding-up and sale proceedings had substantially progressed, the secured creditor had participated in the sale, and no parallel recovery proceeding was being usurped. The Company Court's jurisdiction to confirm the sale therefore remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-consideration of an earlier Supreme Court decision amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the earlier Supreme Court decision ousted the Company Court's jurisdiction to proceed with and confirm the sale of the wound-up company's assets.

Issue (i): Whether non-consideration of an earlier Supreme Court decision amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review.

Analysis: Review lies only within the narrow limits of review jurisdiction and is not an appellate rehearing. A mere omission to cite authority does not, by itself, establish an error apparent. The omission becomes material only where the ignored decision is directly contrary to the judgment under review and the conflict is patent without elaborate reasoning. Where the precedent is sought to be used only as an additional argument, or its application depends on interpretation and factual comparison, the omission does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The ground based on non-consideration of the earlier decision did not make out a case for review.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the earlier Supreme Court decision ousted the Company Court's jurisdiction to proceed with and confirm the sale of the wound-up company's assets.

Analysis: The earlier decision on exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and Recovery Officer was distinguished on facts. There, the controversy involved pending adjudication and execution under the recovery statute, with competing claims and interference by the Company Court in proceedings already pending before the Tribunal. Here, the winding-up proceedings and the sale process had substantially progressed before the bank filed its claim before the Tribunal, the secured creditor itself had participated in and supported the sale before the Company Court, and there was no parallel adjudication or execution proceeding under the recovery statute that the Company Court had stayed or usurped. Mere filing of a claim before the Tribunal did not, on these facts, oust the Company Court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The earlier decision did not bar the Company Court from proceeding with the sale, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The review failed because no patent error or direct inconsistency with the cited Supreme Court ruling was shown, and the confirmed sale order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-consideration of a precedent warrants review only when the ignored decision is directly contrary to the impugned judgment and the error is patent on the face of the record; a precedent requiring factual application or supporting only an additional argument does not by itself justify review.

---