Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error or jurisdictional defect; re-argument of decided issues is impermissible.

Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-argue matters already considered, and interference is limited to cases showing jurisdictional infirmity or an error apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that the earlier order had already examined the rival submissions and found that Centrica India Offshore Private Limited did not apply to the facts. As no such apparent error or jurisdictional defect was demonstrated, the review petitions were not maintainable on the grounds raised and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions could be entertained on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 01.12.2020.

Analysis: The review jurisdiction could not be used to re-agitate or re-argue issues already considered in the earlier judgment. The order under review had taken note of the rival submissions and had already held that the decision in Centrica India Offshore Private Limited did not apply to the facts of the cases. No jurisdictional infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record was shown to justify interference in review.

Conclusion: The review petitions were not maintainable on the grounds urged and were liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The order under review was allowed to stand, and no interference was warranted in exercise of review jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided, and interference is justified only where a jurisdictional infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.

---