AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr. Devesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Isha Virmani, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv. M/S. Lawfic, AOR Mr. David Rao, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. M.s. Vishnu Sankar, Adv. Mr. Sriram Parakkat, Adv. Ms. Athira G. Nair, Adv. Mr. Aditya Santosh, Adv. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Aastah Mehta, Adv. Ms. Prerna Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Yasha Goyal, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Thapliyal, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Devan, Adv. Mr. Surya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Sarvana Vasanta, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Grover, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Adv. Ms. Pratcheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vatsala Kak, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Dembla, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Adv. Ms. Geetika Sharma, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. This batch of five Review Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority. 58. We are constrained to hold that the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) and the Adjudicating Authority erred in law in rejecting the application/appeal of the appellant. As observed above, delay in filing a claim cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the claim. 59. The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The Resolution plan approved by the CoC is also set aside. The Resolution Professional may consider a fresh Resolution Plan in the light of the observations made above. However, this judgment and order will not, prevent the Resolution Applicant from submitting a plan in the light of the observations made above, making provisions for the dues of the statutory creditors like the appellant. 60. There shall be no order as to costs". 5. The following five Review Petitions have been filed by the Review Petitioners being aggrieved by the said common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court. (i) The Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Review Petitioners - Chandra Prakash Jain and Anr., Resolution Professional of M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd., and M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd (Corporate Debtor), who were the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 filed by the Appellant - State Tax Officer. According to the petitioners, they are aggrieved by the common impugned order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court as the same was passed without taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court and the provisions of IBC. (v) The Review Petition (Civil) No. 1623 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 has been filed by the Review Petitioner- Indian Overseas Bank, which was one of the members of the Committee of creditors constituted subsequent to the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the M/s. Rainbow Papers Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Review Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, however, is seeking review being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2022. 6. This Court vide the order dated 13th November, 2022, had allowed the Applications seeking permission to file Review Petitions and also allowed the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. AIR 1965 SC 845, Sajjan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 11. In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others (1997) 8 SCC 715, this Court made very pivotal observations: - "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electrici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. Analysis : 17. Keeping in view the afore-stated legal position, let us examine whether the Review Petitioners have been able to make out any case within the ambit of Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, read with Order XLVII of CPC, for reviewing the impugned judgment. 18. We have heard Mr. Harish N Salve, Mr. Naveen Pahwa, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, and Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, respective learned Senior Counsels and other learned counsels for the Review Petitioners/ Intervenors, as also Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Aastha Mehta, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 19. The le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be to refer the matter to the larger Bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise the law would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions. 21. In JaiSri Sahu vs. Rajdewan Dubey and Others AIR 1962 SC 83, a Bench of four Judges have made very pertinent observations in this regard: - "11. Law will be bereft of all its utility if it should be thrown into a state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions, and it is therefore desirable that in case of difference of opinion, the question should be authoritatively settled." 22. In Mamleshwar Prasad and Another vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) Through L.Rs. (1975) 2 SCC 232, it was observed that: - "7. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts - all flowering from the same principle - converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind like cases. We do not intend to detract from the rule that, in exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding preceden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) 9 SCC 657 in Paragraph 42. The decision in case of Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another (2022) 2 SCC 401 in Paragraph 47, and thereafter observed as under: - "48. A resolution plan which does not meet the requirements of SubSection (2) of Section 30 of the IBC, would be invalid and not binding on the Central Government, any State Government, any statutory or other authority, any financial creditor, or other creditor to whom a debt in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is owed. Such a resolution plan would not bind the State when there are outstanding statutory dues of a Corporate Debtor. 49. Section 31(1) of the IBC which empowers the Adjudicating Authority to approve a Resolution Plan uses the expression "it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding ... " subject to the condition that the Resolution Plan meets the requirements of subsection (2) of Section 30. If a Resolution Plan meets the requirements, the Adjudicating Authority is mandatorily required to approve the Resolution Plan. On the other hand, Sub-section (2) of Section 31, which enabl....