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

Bombay HC dismissed a review petition challenging a judgment dated 1st October 2024. The petitioner sought review claiming error apparent on the face of record. The court found that following the consent order, the review petitioner had already appeared before NCLT and received a detailed order, demonstrating they had acted upon the judgment sought to be reviewed. The HC held that no case for review was established and dismissed the petition, finding no error apparent on the record warranting review of the original judgment.

---

---

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.

---