2016 (9) TMI 1092

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the project authority", as was in the case of the petitioner and accordingly denying the DEB to the petitioner. The petition also impugns the minutes of the said meeting dated 15th March, 2011 and seeks a direction to the respondents to give the DEB in the sum of Rs. 72 crores to the petitioner. 2. Arguments on the petition were heard on 21st July, 2014 and judgment reserved. 3. Vide detailed judgment dated 12th August, 2014, the petition was dismissed. 4. The petitioner seeks review, inter alia pleading that Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.28644/2014 was preferred before the Supreme Court against our judgment dated 12th August, 2014 and which was disposed of as withdrawn on 7th November, 2014 with liberty to the petitioner to file review petition and with a request to this Court to consider the review petition in accordance with law and with the clarification that if the review petition fails, the petitioner will be at liberty to question not only the judgment dated 12th August, 2014 but also the order in the review petition. 5. Notice of the review petition was issued and a reply thereto filed and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. 6. The senio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t has been observed that "it is not the case of the petitioner that the decision dated 15th March, 2011 was by an authority which was not competent to take the decision". It is argued that in fact it was the plea of the petitioner in the petition that the decision dated 15th March, 2011 was not of a competent authority. 11. In support of the aforesaid contention, the senior counsel for the petitioner/review applicant has taken us through the pleadings in the petition and the review petition and the reply thereto; Section 16 of The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; the judgment dated 26th February, 2014 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4455/2013 titled Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union of India and encouraged whereby the petitioner had filed this petition. 12. On the aspect of delay, the senior counsel for the petitioner/review applicant contended that the petitioner had preferred this petition in May, 2014, soon after the judgment dated 26th February, 2014 and thus there was no delay. 13. It was further argued that once another person similarly placed as the petitioner namely Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. had succeeded, the claim of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also contended by the learned ASG that ABL International Ltd. supra has been differentiated in Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 728. 21. The senior counsel for the petitioner/review applicant in rejoinder has again drawn attention to para 11 of the judgment of which review is sought and argued that it flows therefrom that had we understood the case of the petitioner as constituting a challenge to the competence of the authority which took the decision dated 15th March, 2011 and which has now been argued, our judgment would have been otherwise. Attention is invited to the judgment dated 13th February, 2014 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Appeal No.11031/2013 titled Alstom India Ltd. Vs. Union of India holding that even after making payment of tax either by misinterpreting the statutory provision or under unconstitutional provision or under mistake of law, a citizen can challenge the inherent lack of jurisdiction and if succeeds, the Court can in appropriate case direct refund of the amount which has been collected without jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on para 8 of Sushil Kumar Sen Vs. State of Bihar ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioner/review applicant unable to find any such error apparent on the face of the record. 29. Every one of the arguments now presented before us has been already considered carefully in the judgment of which review is sought and the petitioner's demand for review is only an attempt to retrieve a lost case. No fresh facts are brought to our notice by way of discovery of new and important evidence, which would justify reconsideration of the judgment. Para 11 of the judgment of which review is sought and to which repeated reference was made by senior counsel for petitioner/review applicant, in our view, instead of forming a ground for review, shows that we have considered the said contention also and decided against the petitioner thereon also. In this circumstance, if we are to now reach a different conclusion than was reached earlier, the same in our view will put the credibility of the judicial system and this court at stake. 30. Supreme Court, in Haridas Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78 reiterated in S.N.S. (Minerals) Ltd. Vs. Union Of India (2007) 12 SCC 132 held that the parameters of review are prescribed in Order XLVII of the CPC and permit for a rehearing "o....