TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DARAJAN (MEMBER) AND SHRI BALESH KUMAR (MEMBER) For the Non-Applicant (s) : Mr. Ayushman, Sharma Advocate, Mr. Subhash Ch. Charya Mr. Chanakya Baruah Mr. Mayank Sharma For the Review -Applicant(s) : Mr. Manmeet Singh Arora, SPP, Mr. Camran Iqbal, Advocate, Mr. Anish Dhingra, S.P.P Mr. Mohit Kumar ORDER Heard both the parties. The Review Applications and Condonation of Delay (CoD) applications have been filed to seek review of the Orders dated 15.12.2022 and 30.11.2022 passed by this Tribunal. It is supported by applications for CoD. The similar review applications and CoD applications were allowed by this Tribunal by a detailed order dated 10.07.2025 in the Review Application No. MP-FPA-PBPT/1553/DLI/2024 in Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-1113/DLI/2020 titled as Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Ors. versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi which is quoted hereunder:- "The Review/Rectification applications have been filed with the prayer to review and recall the final order passed by this Tribunal. It is in the light of the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Apex Court on a Review Petition in the case of Union of India versus Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2024 SCC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies including filing a Review Application before this Tribunal. It is after noticing that judgement in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) is pending consideration on a Review Petition before the Apex Court and therefore both the parties consented that whatever issues are involved in the appeal be kept open while disposing of the appeal in light of the judgement supra. The appeal was accordingly disposed of in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). The Apex Court in the said judgment held that amending Act 2016 would have prospective operation. This Tribunal applied the judgment aforesaid to dispose of the appeals finding transaction to be prior to the amendment. It was without analyzing even Section 2(9)(A) of the amending Act 2016. 6. The Counsel submitted that occasion to seek review of the order arose when the Apex Court on a Review Petition in the case of Union of India and another versus Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. passed an order on 18.10.2024 recalling its judgment. It became cause for the filing of Review/Rectification Application before this Tribunal and within reasonable time, the Review/Rectification Applications w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the unamended provisions of the Act of 1988. Section 3(2) and 5 of unamended Act of 1988 was declared unconstitutional without a challenge to the constitutional validity of those provisions. 9. The Apex Court realized that constitutional validity of the statutory provision could not have been adjudicated in absence of its challenge. The Review Petition was allowed limited to the aforesaid issue. In view of the above, even if the entire judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) has been recalled, it would be limited to the issue referred by the Apex Court in its order dated 18.10.2024 and not opening of other issues and more specifically in reference to the Amending Act of 2016 to apply prospectively. The Review/Rectification Application has been filed by the Review Applicant ignoring the aforesaid and therefore on the first ground itself Review/Rectification Application deserves to be dismissed. 10. Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant further submitted that the perusal of the Review/Rectification Application filed by the respondent would not reveal any ground for review of the order. The Review Application has been filed without raising any ground, rather, fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal but does not bind the Tribunal to accept or entertain the Review Application. Looking to the fact aforesaid also, there is no reason for this Tribunal to consider the order of the Apex Court dated 18.10.2024 in Ganpati Dealcom (supra) to be a command to allow the Review Application and in view of the above also there remains no reason to accept the Review Application, rather, it should be dismissed. 14. Another argument raised by the Counsel for the non-applicant was that change of judgement and change of law are two distinct propositions. The change of the law may not make out a case for review of the order and therefore also there is no reason to entertain the Review Application. It is even if the judgement in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) has been recalled by the order dated 18.10.2024. The issue involved in that case is yet to be decided by the Apex Court and that too afresh. Thus, there remains no reason for this Tribunal to take a view that the amending Act of 2016 would apply prospectively or retrospectively and in fact endeavor of the Review Applicant is to seek an order of the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue, though, knowing it well that the matter is st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant to contest the Review Application and application for Condonation of Delay. 19. Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant made elaborate arguments on both the applications and would be referred by this Tribunal while recording findings in reference to each issue involved in these review applications. We are, thus, not referring the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Review Application at this stage, rather, it would be referred while dealing with the issues raised by the non-applicant to contest the Review Application. 20. Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant elaborately argued the Review Application and submitted that the reasons and grounds for filing the Review Applications have been furnished in Review Application, thus, it is incorrect to state that no ground to seek review has been given in the Review Application. It is submitted that the order sought to be reviewed was decided without touching the merit of the issues raised in the appeal by either of the parties, rather, the order was passed in the light of the consent of the parties that all the issues raised in appeal to be kept open so that disposal may not affect either of the parties for the reason t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 23.08.2022 with restoration of the appeal for afresh adjudication. Para 2 to 7 of the order dated 18.10.2024 are quoted hereunder for reference: 2. The review has been sought in these proceedings of the judgment of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Another v Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd. The only question which was framed for consideration by this Court was in the following terms: "3. The short legal question which arises for this Court's consideration is whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short "the 1988 Act"), as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (for short "the 2016 Act") has a prospective effect. Although a purely legal question arises in this appeal, it is necessary to have a brief factual background in mind before we advert to the analysis." 3. The conclusion which was arrived at by the Court, was in the following terms: "127.1.Section 3(2) (sic Section 3) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment. 25. Once the judgment was recalled by the Apex Court without qualifying it to be only in reference to the constitutional validity of Section 3(2) or Section 5 of the unamended provisions, we cannot take a view offending the order of the Apex Court dated 18.10.2024 to hold that recall of the judgment is in part. This Tribunal lacks jurisdiction for the aforesaid. It is more so when operative part of order dated 18.10.2024 further directs that if the matter was disposed of relying on the judgment of the apex Court in Ganpati Dealcom (supra), liberty is given to the aggrieved party to seek a review of the order. The liberty was given in rem, if the case decided relying the judgment of the Apex Court in Ganpati Dealcom (supra). It is without qualifying it to be only on the constitutional validity. In the light of aforesaid when the judgment dated 23.08.2022 in the case of Ganpati Dealcom has been recalled entirely and thereby it no more exist, we cannot hold that the order dated 18.10.2024 should be taken only in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that they can at the earliest argue the appeal touching the issues on merit. We are, thus, unable to accept that Review Application does not disclose ground to make out a case to seek review of the order of this Tribunal, rather, in the light of the order passed by us and sought to be reviewed, they have made out a case for review of the order. Issue-3 29. We may now address the issue in reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra). The non-applicant has made much emphasis on the judgement to submit that similar Review Application has been dismissed by the Apex Court, thus, this Tribunal should not take a view different than taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra). It is mainly on the ground that the scope of review has been determined by the Apex Court in the case of K.L. Rathi Steel (supra). To consider the issue, we have gone through the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra) case. Para 3 to 5 of the order of the Apex Court are quoted hereunder: 3. We also express our inability to agree with the observations made by three-Judge Bench of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 5. In R.P.(C) No.359 of 2023 in C.A. No.5783 of 2022 (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment of this Court in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) which is also of a co-equal strength and prior in time. Therefore, following the judgment of this Court in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra), we decline to grant liberty to seek review in the present case. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed. 30. The Apex Court in the order aforesaid expressed its inability to agree with the observation and the order of three-Judge Bench dated 18.10.2024 in the case of Ganpati Dealcom in which they not only reviewed the order but recalled the judgment for afresh determination of the issues for the reason that constitutional validity of Section 3(2) and Section 5 of the Act of 1988 could not have been determined without a challenge to the statutory provisions. It seems to have been considered to be an apparent mistake/error on the face of it. Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant submitted that the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Act of 2016, whether to apply prospective or have retrospective application. This Tribunal would pass the order appropriately. The restoration of appeal, thus, would take out the possibility of discrimination amongst similarly situated. 32. The Review Application has not been filed to question the finding on merit, rather, it was not even touched and decided in the order sought to be reviewed in view of the consent of the parties. The Review Application has been filed to seek recall of the order of this Tribunal in light of the order of the Apex Court dated 18.10.2024. The Review Application is in reference to it and otherwise to advance the cause of justice. We are afraid that we can take a view offending the order dated 18.10.2024 of the three-judge bench of Apex Court in Ganpati Dealcom (supra). However, we do not endorse the argument of the Review Applicant that two-judges bench of Supreme Court in Kokilaben's case (supra) should not have qualified the order of the three-judge bench on the same issue. However, for the reasons elaborately given, we are not accepting the argument of the non-applicant in reference to the issue dealt with hereinabove. Issue-4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o recall order dated 18.10.2024 in Ganpati Dealcom (supra) is as to whether the Amending Act 2016 would apply prospectively or can apply retrospectively. The aforesaid issue is yet to be determined in a specific term. The issue is not that the PBPT Act of 1988 would have prospective or retrospective application. In any case, this Tribunal would not determine the issue aforesaid in this Review Application, rather, it is pending consideration before the Apex Court after recall of its judgment dated 23.08.2022 in Ganpati Dealcom (supra). The recall of the order herein is not sought to hold that the Amending Act of 2016 should have retrospective application, rather, that is not an issue involved in the Review Application. Thus, this Tribunal would refrain to enter into the issue not raised before us, rather, it is for the parties to raise the issue before the Apex Court in the pending litigation after the recall of the earlier judgement dated 23.08.2022 in Ganpati Dealcom (supra). We are thus unable to accept the argument of the non-applicant. Issue -5 35. Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant then submitted that grant of liberty of review by the apex Court in its order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2024 of the Apex Court. The non-applicants were knowing about the liberty given by the Tribunal to seek review of the order in case apex Court reviews its judgment dated 23.08.2022, they did not raise any objection against the liberty to that effect or made challenge but now raising the issue against the liberty given by the Tribunal to the parties to seek review. 37. We have considered both the judgments cited by the Counsel for the non-applicant. In the case of Beghar Foundation (supra), it was held that change of law or subsequent decision of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench cannot be regarded as a ground of review. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax versus M/s Gracemac Foundation (supra). The judgments in those cases have been cited by the non-applicant without realizing that case in hand is not to seek a review of the order based on subsequent judgment where a different proposition of law has been evolved. The case in hand has peculiarity. In the instant case the issues were decided by the Apex Court in reference to the provisions of Act of 1988 and even the Amending Act of 2016. It was in the judgment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicant should not be allowed to apply double standard as per their convenience otherwise there was no reason for the Tribunal to even allow the Appeal in the light of the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (Supra) pending Review Petition. It is also when the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom has been recalled and Review Application is not heard rather kept pending, it would be nothing but in defiance of the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Supreme Court where it has given liberty to seek review of the order, if passed in the light of the judgment in Ganpati Dealcom (Supra). 40. We have considered the submissions of the parties and find that that while the Appeals were taken up for hearing, the Review Petition No. 359/2023 was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom. The non-applicant prayed for disposal of the Appeal in light of the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) with liberty to the either party to seek review of the order. The Review Application was filed when the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) was recalled. The prayer to keep the matter pending shows conduct of the non-applicant. It is alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of the Review Applications have been filed invoking Section 40(2)(f) of the Act of 1988. In any case, issue raised by the non-applicant is required to be dealt with. 43. Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicants submitted that mere making reference of the wrong provision would not nullify the Review Petition, rather, it should be driven by its contents and the prayer therein. It has, otherwise, been titled as 'Review Petition', thus, in essence it is to be taken under Section 40(2)(f) of the Act of 1988. Mere making a reference of wrong provision is not fatal. 44. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and find that a few Review Applications make a reference of Section 47 of the Act of 1988 whereas majority of the Review Applications have been filed invoking section 40(2)(f) of the Act of 1988. The provisions aforesaid is quoted thus:- 40. Procedure and powers of Appellate Tribunal - (1) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (2) The Appellate Tribunal shall, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quoted Section 20 in the order of discharge whereas, in fact, the order of discharge has to be read having been passed under Section 22 of the Army Act. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law [see N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 278]. Thus, quoting of wrong provision of Section 20 in the order of discharge of the appellant by the competent authority does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant." In N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatres & Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 278], it is stated: "9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2001) 3 SCC 482]. 47. Another judgement is again of the Apex Court in the case of Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadega(D) versus Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah and Ors. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 533. Para 8 of the said judgement is quoted hereunder: 8. It is well settled law that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. 48. A further reference to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla reported in Manu/DE/0002/2025 would be relevant. Para 12 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: 12. It is apparent that application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner has been dismissed merely on the ground that it was filed under Section 151 CPC and not under the Limitation Act, 1963. The trial court has not addressed the application on merits. Mentioning wrong Section of law in an application by a party is typically not considered "fatal" to the case, provided the substance of the application is clear and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party or the court. The courts generally prioritize substance over form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter of the judgement in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). 51. We have considered the submissions and find that issue in reference to the prospectively or retrospectively application of the amending Act of 2016 was finally decided by the Apex Court. However, the judgment has been recalled vide order dated 18.10.2024 with a liberty to aggrieved party to seek review of the order if decided in reference to the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). In the instant case we are not determining as to whether the Amending Act of 2016 has prospective or retrospective application, rather, that issue has not been raised in the review application. It may be for the reasons that matter is pending consideration before the Apex Court. Thus, we are unable to accept a fact which has not been specifically raised by the non-applicant and otherwise this Tribunal is not reviewing the order to determine the issue whether Amending Act of 2016 would have prospective or retrospective application but recalling its order in reference to the order of the apex Court dated 18.10.2024 in Ganpati Dealcom (supra). We are not deciding the issue by taking a different view than taken by any Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17. No doubt, Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar (supra) relates to a writ petition, but the statement of law laid down is clear. Sheo Raj Singh (supra) has also considered the impersonal nature of the functioning of the State, taking note of what was observed in State of Manipur v Kotin Lamkang, (2019) 10 SCC 408. In A B Govardhan v P Ragothaman, (2024) 10 SCC 613, the Court considered as under: '37. In Collector (LA) v. Katiji [Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107], the Court noted that it had been adopting a justifiably liberal approach in condoning delay and that "justice on merits" is to be preferred as against what "scuttles CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 a decision on merits". Albeit, while reversing an order of the High Court therein condoning delay, principles to guide the consideration of an application for condonation of delay were culled out in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 713: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 450: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 595]. One of the factors taken note of therein was that substantial justice is paramount [Para 21.3 of Esha Bhattacharjee [Esha Bhatta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. 55. In the case of Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 the apex Court held that justifiable and liberal approach is to be adopted in condoning delay. The "justice on merits" has to be preferred against "scuttles a decision on merits". 56. In the case of Esha Bhattercharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academic (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Apex Court held that one of the factors to be taken into consideration for condonation of delay is to be for substantial justice. It should be paramount consideration. The sound tests to exercise distinction in Condonation of Delay is not in reference to physical running of the time but test should be whether the reason of the delay is in utter negligence and the party had literally given up his claim. In the light of the aforesaid, if the present case is taken into consideration, we have recorded our observations on Review Application and found merit therein and if we dismiss the application for condonation, it would have serious repercussion which includes to cause discrimination between similarly situated in a given case if finally, apex Court decides the case of Ganpat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice. it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in, the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pedandic. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day's delay Sn filing the Review Application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned. 59. The Apex court had an occasion to deal with the issue in reference to the litigation taken up by the Government. It is held that adoption of some standard to justify the delay may lead to miscarriage of public justice rather it may result in public mischief by skillful management of delay in the process of filing of appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the cours or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from this perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia versus Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2024 SCC Online 2981 by the three-Judge bench. It has been rendered per incuriam by Gauhati High Court while it is binding on this Tribunal, thus, should not offend the judgement of three-judge bench. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant, further, submitted that the judgement by Gauhati High Court in the case supra has been given after misreading of the 'Explanation' to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') and even the judgment in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi versus K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 315 and other judgments referred therein. The judgment of Gauhati High Court should rather be rendered per incuriam having been passed contrary to the statutory provision and more specifically to the 'Explanation' to Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC and the judgment of the three-judge bench of Supreme Court in Ganpati Dealcom reported in 2024 SCC Online 2981. The Gauhati High Court failed to notice the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC for drawing proper conclusion. The Gauhati High Court framed two issues for its determination and those questions were referred along with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself, cannot be a ground for review. 7. The Gauhati High Court itself refers to the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to the effect that if the decision on the question of law on which the judgement of the Court is based is reversed or modified subsequently by the Superior Court "in any other case" then it would not be a ground for review. In the instant case, review of the order passed by this Tribunal was not in reference to the subsequent decision of the superior Court "in any other case". The word "in any other case" has significance and clarifies that the review cannot be based on a subsequent judgment "in any other case" where a different view on the same subject has been taken. In the instant case, this Tribunal has not reviewed its order based on the subsequent judgment "in any other case", rather, it was in the same case. The earlier judgment of the Apex Court was in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) and was recalled by the order dated 18.10.2024. It was not in any other case and therein also a different view has not been taken to reverse or modify the earlier ratio propounded by it, rather, the earlier judgment has been recalled and thus matter is pending for af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Puttaswami, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 1 (Aadhaar Review-5 J.). The majority was of the following view: (SCC p. 5, para 2) "2. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26-9-2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26-9-2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed." 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case (supra) has given reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) where interpretation to the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and scope of review has been given. 10. Para quoted above again refers to the subsequent judgment by the Apex Court but should be "in any other case". The case in hand was not of a review of the order based on a subsequent judgment of Superior Court "in any other case but was in the same case and that too no view has been propounded, rather, yet to be decided by the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n paragraph-7 of the review petition in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Page No.# 16/17 Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981 cannot be followed, as the same was apparently per incuriam. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra) has already decided as to which decision of the conflicting 3 Judges Bench is to be followed, we are bound to follow the above interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision would have to be followed by the High Court. 12. Paras 23 and 24 are in reference of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Director of Income Tax (BPU Unit) and others vs. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2622. The Hon'ble Apex Court refused to entertain the review application in reference of the order passed by the three-judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). It is said to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CPC. In the case of K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra), the jurisdiction of the Court while deciding the review application has been settled. It has to be within the framework of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. If three-judge bench order of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) dated 18.10.2024 is looked into, the error in its judgment has been referred for causing recall of the judgment. It was on the ground that the constitutional validity of the provision was not challenged before the Apex Court in the main judgment of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). Without a challenge to constitutional validity, the judgment was rendered, which is said to be impermissible was taken to be cause for review of the order and was recalled. The order of the three-judge bench of the Apex Court dated 18.10.2024 in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) is quoted hereunder:- "5. It is not disputed that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the unamended provisions. This is also clear from the formulation of the question which arose for consideration before the Bench in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which has been extracted above. In the submissions of parties which have ....