Allahabad High Court
M/S Garg Oil Industries And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 May, 2025
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75807-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37453 of 2001 Petitioner :- M/S Garg Oil Industries and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi,N.C.Rajvanshi,Vishesh Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A. Khan,A. Khare,Atoq Ahmad Khan,Dinesh Tewari,Mohd. Saleem Khan,V. Singh,V.S. Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
(Civil Misc. Review/Recall Application No.07 of 2021 filed on behalf of the petitioners)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. This application has been filed for reviewing/recalling the judgement and order dated 14.01.2020 by which the writ petition was dismissed with following observations:-
"27. Having said so, Court held that PFC had acted in a most reasonable and fair manner and High Court was not justified in nullifying the second notice issued under Section 29 of Act, 1951 assuming that PFC had not taken effective steps for realization of dues in furtherance of first notice. Court said that High Court ignored conduct of borrower, who adopted a recalcitrant attitude in the matter of payment of outstanding dues, but also failed to avail concession offered by PFC by reducing rate of interest and reschedulement. It also held that High Court should not have reduced interest to simple interest, altering terms of loan agreement, which is not permissible.
28. Following decision in Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills (supra) Supreme Court in Managing Director, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and others vs. Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde (2010) 7 SCC 489 held that where borrower had no genuine intention to repay and adopts pretexts and ploys to avoid payment, he cannot make grievance that Corporation was not acting fairly, even if requisite procedures have been followed.
29. In these facts and circumstances we do not find any illegality on the part of UPFC in proceeding to take possession of petitioner's Unit in exercise of power under Section 29 of Act, 1951 and putting the Unit for auction.
30. Moreover, nothing has been placed by petitioners on record to show that there was any bona fide, willing buyer actually available to purchase Unit and its assets, for more than Rs.5 lakhs i.e. consideration whereupon it has been sold to respondent 6. In absence of any buyer offering higher price than that whereupon it has been sold to respondent 6, we find no reason to interfere with sale transaction of Unit in favour of respondent 6.
31. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances we find that petitioners have not approached this Court in a bona fide manner. It was financed by UPFC but committed repeated defaults in repayment. Despite demand and notices, petitioners made no attempt to clear outstanding dues. Several cheques issued by petitioners towards repayment of outstanding dues were dishonored. Even when One Time Settlement was accepted and Rehabilitation Committee of State Government made proposal to petitioners to deposit just 10 percent of the total outstanding dues, at that time i.e. Rs.1,40,000/-, vide letter dated 06.01.2001, still petitioners had no intention to pay the said amount and made no attempt to do so.
32. In these facts and circumstances, we do not find that petitioners are entitled to any relief and this is not a fit case justifying interference in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. Writ petition lacks merit."
3. Having gone through the grounds taken in the review application, we find that aforesaid judgement and order dated 14.01.2020 had been assailed before Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 10061/2020 (Mas Garg Oil Industries & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & ors) and a Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court vide an order dated 19.11.2020 had proceeded to dismiss the said Special Leave to Appeal.
4. It is settled law that an application for review cannot be treated to be an opportunity to argue the case on merits afresh. The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. The error contemplated under the rule must be such, which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error, which has to be searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. A court of review has only a limited jurisdiction and it can allow a review on the grounds; (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
5. In Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits. The Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.
6. In the case of Union of India v. B. Valluvar, 2006 (8) SCC 686, Hon'ble Apex Court has again considered the parameters of review jurisdiction of High Court, that same shall be exercised within the limitations as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule of C.P.C., and without recording finding as to there existed error apparent on the face of the record, merit cannot be gone into.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. M.P. Mohila, 2007 (1) SCC 457, has taken the view that in the garb of clarification application, recourse to achieve the result of review application, cannot be permitted, as what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.
8. On the touchstone of the dictum noted above, the review is permissible only when there is error apparent on the face of record i. e. error should be grave and palpable, and the error must be such as would be apparent on mere looking of record, without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning, and reappraisal of entire evidence for finding the error, as same would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.
9. Perusal of judgment under review shows that each and every aspect of the matter has been considered and thereafter, the writ petition in question was dismissed and there appears no apparent mistake in the judgment under review. Neither review court can examine the merits of the judgment as an appellate court nor in the garb of review petition, a re-hearing of the matter be permitted by this Court.
10. The review application has no merit and the same is dismissed, accordingly.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) Order Date :- 9.5.2025 RKP