TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by this Court in STRE No. - 225 of 2002. FACT 4. I have outlined the brief facts leading up to the instant review application below: a. In STRE No. - 225 of 2002, the main question raised by M/S Tata Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisionist') was "whether in view of the definition of 'purchase price' under Section 2(gg) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UPTTA, 1948), the applicant having paid the amount of Rs. 5,56,81,000/- also for the purchase of plant and machinery, apparatus and equipment, the same ought to have been included in the 'Fixed Capital Investment' and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the said amount merely on the ground that the amount has been allowed as MODVAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CEA, 1944). Other questions were also raised with regard to MODVAT allowed by the excise department. b. The aforesaid question was answered by this Court vide its order dated February 15, 2010 in favour of the Revisionist. c. Against the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court, the Respondent preferred a Special Leave Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HE REVISIONIST 6. Shri Devashish Bharuka, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revisionist has made the following submissions: i. The Respondent had challenged the main judgment of this Court dated February 15, 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13259 of 2010. The same was withdrawn by the Respondent on the ground that, the "the main question of law, which arose from the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, U.P., has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment and, therefore, the petitioner would like to file a review application before the High Court". Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as 'not pressed'. ii. In view of the aforesaid liberty, the Respondent has filed the instant review petition. However, instead of pointing out as to which 'main question of law' has not been dealt with by this Court in the main judgment dated February 15, 2010, the Respondent has taken a completely different stand in the instant review application. It has been averred that, "the relevant law which could not be pointed out at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result." 10. In its judgment in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma -v- Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that review power and appellate power are inherently distinct. While the appellate power enables the courts to rectify all manners of errors in the judgment or order under challenge, review power does not. Relevant paragraph is extracted herein below: "3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dressed and decided. It was further observed that 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 record. 35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 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." 13. In Parsion Devi -v- Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court espoused that the power under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 does not allow for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." Relevant paragraphs are extracted below: "7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174] (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined: "What, however, we are now concerned with is whether t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. Bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved and held in paras 14 to 18 as under : "14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] it was held that : '8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations : "3. ... It is true ... there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.' 17. The judgment in Aribam case [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] has been followed in Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] . In that case, it has been reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137] were also noted : '17. .....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 461] in paras 7 to 11 it is observed and held as under : "7. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") provides for a substantive power of review by a civil court and consequently by the appellate courts. The words "subject as aforesaid" occurring in Section 114 of the Code mean subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed as appearing in Section 113 thereof and for the said purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order 47 of the Code must be taken into consideration. Section 114 of the Code although does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court but such limitations have been provided for in Order 47 of the Code; Rule 1 whereof reads as under : (Kamal Sengupta case [State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735] , '17. The power of a civil court to review its judgment/ decision is traceable in Section 114CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1CPC, which reads as under: "1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omas v. Union of India [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056] this Court held : '56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.' 8. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844] , this Court has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. 9. What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the proceedings has been dealt with and considered by this Court in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440] . It is held that such an error is an error....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction, when exercised judiciously, embodies this wisdom - it is a beacon of hope for those aggrieved by manifest injustice, offering solace in the face of adversity. At its core, review jurisdiction is about scrutiny, not re-litigation. It is about examining the record of proceedings with a discerning eye, searching for errors of law, fact, or procedure. It is not a second chance for litigants to present their case anew or to introduce fresh evidence. Rather, it is a solemn duty entrusted to the judiciary, a duty to ensure that justice is not just done, but seen to be done. 20. The jurisprudence surrounding the power of review is as intricate as it is unequivocal. It delineates a stringent criterion wherein an appellant, desiring to invoke the mechanism of review against a judgment or order, must demonstrate the unearthing of new and pivotal matter or evidence - a revelation that, despite exhaustive and diligent inquiry, remained elusive to the court's purview. This requirement embodies the essence of due diligence, mandating not merely a cursory glance but a thorough excavation into the depths of legal enquiry. Review jurisdiction is not to be misconstrued as a second bite at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that various decisions were not cited; proper consideration was paid; in fact the sale deed was acted upon; and that there was no proof that the sale was not for valid consideration. The omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior judgment saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, since the counsel has committed an error in not bringing to the notice of the court the relevant precedents. In fact, since the respondent had claimed that it is not a sale deed but was executed for collateral purpose, it was for the respondent to establish that the sale was for real consideration and he had a valid sale deed duly executed by the appellant. The High Court wrongly placed the burden on the appellant and reviewed the order and heard the matter on merits. The entire approach of the learned Single Judge is not correct in law." 22. Mere failure to cite a judgment does not, in and of itself, render the original judgment flawed. Review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the o....