2025 (7) TMI 1147 - HC - Companies Law

Review petition dismissed after petitioner acted on original judgment by appearing before NCLT

Mrs. Manisha Nimesh Mehta, Promoter & Guarantor of M/s. Perfect Infraengineers Ltd., Versus Technology Development Board, Shri. Rajesh Pathak, Secretary, Technology Development Board, Department of Science & Technology, The Project Monitoring Committee, Represented by its Chairman, Technology Development Board, New Delhi, Assistant Law Officer/Authorized Officer, Technology Development Board, The Board of Directors of ICICI Bank, Ministry of Finance, Through its Secretary, Department of Banking, State of Maharashtra, Reserve Bank of India, National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and others.

Bombay HC dismissed a review petition challenging a judgment dated 1st October 2024. The petitioner sought review claiming error apparent on the face of ... Review petition - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to this consent Order, which is sought to be reviewed in the present Petition, the Review Petitioner has appeared before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) and has suffered a detailed Order by the NCLT. Hence, it is clear that the Review Petitioner has even acted upon the Judgment sought to be reviewed. There are no hesitation in holding that no case for review of the Judgment dated 1st October 2024 is made out - the Review Petition is dismissed. ISSUES: Whether a consent judgment passed by the Court can be subject to review.Whether grounds raised in a review petition that merely rehash original contentions justify review under the applicable legal standards.The applicability of a Supreme Court decision regarding statutory force and binding nature of instructions/directions issued under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related RBI provisions to ongoing proceedings before the NCLT.Whether the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw parallel and related proceedings affects the Court's directions in the context of review. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that 'no error apparent on the face of record of the impugned order justifying a review' was found, emphasizing that the review petition was a 'mere rehash of the grounds in the original Writ Petition.'The Court ruled that a judgment 'passed by consent of the parties' is not maintainable for review, and accordingly dismissed the review petition.The Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling that instructions/directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and by the RBI under Sections 21 and 35A have 'statutory force and binding' effect, but noted that the parties consented to the procedure for the NCLT to consider those directions in the pending Company Petition, rather than reopening the consent judgment by review.The Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw all related proceedings except specified suits and appeals, making the consent order binding and effective. RATIONALE: The Court applied the principles governing review petitions, which require the presence of an 'error apparent on the face of record' or other exceptional grounds, and rejected review where the petition merely repeats earlier arguments.The judgment under review was a consent order, which the Court treated as binding and not subject to review, consistent with established legal doctrine that consent judgments are final and conclusive unless vitiated by fraud or mistake.The Court relied on the Supreme Court's authoritative interpretation of the statutory force of Government and RBI instructions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, but confined its application to the procedural context before the NCLT as agreed by parties.The Court imposed conditions including maintaining status quo and timely adjudication by the NCLT, reflecting a procedural framework to balance the interests of the parties without disturbing the consent judgment.