TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), praying for review of the judgment dated 24th June, 2024, disposing of the present writ petition on the first date itself, without affording opportunity to the respondents to put forth their case before this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for review petitioner, i.e., respondent no. 1 submits that the power of this Court to review its judgment is plenary in nature, especially, with respect to the Principles of Natural Justice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the review petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the fact that the writ petition was allowed at the stage of notice, wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Department and Anr., W.P.(C) 12461/2022. 9. Evidently, no appearance was made on behalf of respondent no.1 despite advance notice, and considering the submission that the case of the writ petitioner was allegedly covered by the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court passed the judgment dated 24th June, 2024. 10. However, upon perusal of the record and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, it is manifest that the right of the review petitioner has been adversely affected on account of the findings given in the impugned judgment dated 24th June, 2024. Thus, this Court is of the view that sufficient cause has been shown by the review petitioner for review of the judgment d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in which the power of procedural review may be invoked. In such a case the party seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. He has to establish that the procedure followed by the court or the quasijudicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch as the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice. Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of natural justice. xxx xxx xxx" 13. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, this Court had passed a judgment in favour of the writ petitioner on the ground that the case was purportedly covered by a previous judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. However, the said fact has been disputed by the review petitioner. The present matter, accordingly, requires consideration and re-hearing. 14. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case as canvassed by respondent no. 1, and solely on the ground that respondent no. 1, at the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned. xxx xxx xxx" (Emphasis Supplied) 17. Thus, considering the submissions made before this Court, sufficient cause has been shown explaining the delay of 64 days in filing the review petition. Besides, the delay is not so gross or substantial, so as to deny the relief to the respondent no. 1. 18. Accordingly, the delay of 64 days in filing the review petition is condoned. 19. This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1/revi....