Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 September, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010067502019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3530]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Rev.I.A.Nos.4 of 2022 and 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019
And
W.P.Nos.19320 of 2019; 18398 of 2022; 21499 & 21517 of 2022
Rev.I.A.No.4 of 2022 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019:
Between:
1. M/S THE KIRLAMPUDI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SRI SIDDHARTHA INFRATECH AND SERVICES, NEAR
BHARATIYA VIDHYA BHAVAN, ROAD NO.84, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500033 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER BANDARU NARASIMHARAO, S/O.PANDURANGA
RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2. RECOVERY OFFICERII, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,
KAKINADA BRANCH, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. CH SIVA REDDY
2. 3
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: (Per NJSJ) The present Review Petitions are filed seeking review of the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3007 of 2019. The said Writ Petition was disposed of along with W.P.No.1105 of 2019 and W.P.No.25880 of 2021.
2) For better appreciation of the case, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.3007 of 2019.
3) The 3rd respondent i.e., M/s The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the borrower") availed credit facilities from the Central Bank of India - 2nd respondent and committed default in payment of loan amount. For recovery of the loan, the Central Bank filed O.A.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and the same was allowed by an order dated 06.01.2009. For execution of the said order / decree, the Central Bank of India sought to conduct auction of an extent of Ac.42.36 cents of the borrower situated in Pitapuram Town, East Godavari District. In the auction conducted on 14.06.2018, the writ petitioner i.e., M/s. Sri Siddhartha Infra Tech and Services (I) Private Ltd., (for short "the auction purchaser") was the successful bidder and on the same day, it deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e., Rs.7 Crores. 15 days time was available for the writ petitioner / auction purchaser to pay the balance bid amount, but was pre-empted from depositing the balance sale consideration as the 4 borrower filed W.P.No.18502 of 2018 by way of a Lunch Motion and obtained interim orders on 14.06.2018. Subsequently W.P.No.18502 of 2018 was dismissed on 26.10.2018. Thereafter, the borrower filed W.P.No.41658 of 2018 questioning a letter addressed by the Recovery Officer to the auction purchaser on the premise that the same is contrary to Rule 57(2) of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act and an order dated 19.11.2013 was passed, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"...Therefore, if the Petitioner makes payment of Rs.18,83,00,951.47 ps., on or before 07.12.2018, the sale held on 14.06.2018 may be cancelled. To give an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with this Rule, there will be an interim stay of issue of sale certificate and further proceedings thereto. If the money is not paid on or before 07.12.2018, the recovery Officer will be at liberty to issue a sale certificate and proceed further. Call on 10.12.2018 for reporting compliance."
4) The borrower failed to comply with the said order and as such, the writ petitioner / auction purchaser was requested to pay the balance amount within 15 days vide communication dated 25.01.2019. Questioning the said communication, the borrower filed W.P.No.1105 of 2019.
5) While the said writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.41658 of 2018 and 1105 of 2019 are pending adjudication, the 1st respondent-Recovery Officer forfeited the amount deposited by the auction purchaser and cancelled the sale conducted on 14.06.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the auction purchaser filed W.P.No.3007 of 2019. Notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petitions, the 1st respondent remitted an amount of 5 Rs.7,39,68,473.55 ps., to the Government Treasury and aggrieved by the same, the Central Bank of India filed W.P.No.25880 of 2021.
6) The learned Division Bench after hearing the matters at length vide order dated 12.04.2022 which is sought to be reviewed, allowed W.P.No.3007 of 2019 filed by the auction purchaser by setting aside the proceedings cancelling the sale and forfeiting the amount and dismissed W.P.No.1105 of 2019, filed by the borrower. The learned Division Bench while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the auction purchaser issued directions to the effect that the Recovery Officer will issue a fresh notice giving 15 days time for payment of the amount by the auction purchaser and in default to take steps in accordance with law.
7) Initially, Rev.I.A.No.4 of 2022 filed by the borrower seeking review of the said order dated 12.04.2022 came up for consideration. A Division Bench of this Court passed the following order dated 04.08.2023:
"When this review petition came up for hearing, having found that the interest of workers of the subject Sugar Mills is involved and who have nothing to do with the auction sale, this Court enquired whether review petitioner/ borrower is going to deposit a reasonable amount out of the EP amount to show bonafides of the petitioner so as to enable this Court to hear the review petition.
Learned senior counsel, Sri.A.Sudarshan Reddy, on getting instructions from the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner will deposit a reasonable amount as directed by the Court. In that view, we direct the review petitioner/ borrower to deposit 50 % of the amount covered by EP No.1 of 2019 in I.D No.58 of 2006 pending in XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram, within ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, before the Registrar (Judicial), as a condition precedent to hear the review application.
We make it clear that the above direction is without prejudice to the respective rights and liabilities of parties or with the outcome of the review application.6
All the further proceedings pursuant to the auction dated 14.06.2018 shall be stayed until further orders.
Post after four (4) weeks."
8) As the borrower / review petitioner failed to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 04.08.2023, the auction purchaser filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 to vacate the order passed on 04.08.2023. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Division Bench vacated the stay granted on 04.08.2023 vide order dated 01.12.2023, the relevant portion of which, for ready reference, is extracted hereunder:
"When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana appearing for 1st respondent would submit that the petitioners have not complied with the order dated 04.08.2023 and requested the Court to vacate the order granted on 04.08.2023.
Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, who is learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.17244 of 2022 would also submit in similar lines.
On that this Court enquired Sri L.N.R.Rajeswar Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. V.Uma Devi learned counsel for review petitioner as to whether the petitioner have honoured the order dated 04.08.2023 and made deposit of 50% of the amount covered by E.P.No.1/2019 in I.D.No.58/2006 pending on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram, or not.
Learned counsel has not answered this aspect but only request the Court to grant one week time to argue the review petition. However, later learned counsel obtained information to the effect that the amount has not been deposited pursuant to this Court's order dated 04.08.2023. He would fairly submit that no petition has been filed for extension of time.
In these circumstances, stay granted by this Court is vacated.
So far as the request for granting time to hear the review petition is concerned, post the Review Petition after two (2) weeks, for hearing."
9) After about 1 ½ years of the order dated 01.12.2023 referred to above, the review petitioner / borrower filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking to 7 recall the order dated 04.08.2023 in so far as the direction to deposit 50% of the amount as a condition precedent to hear the review application.
10) Heard Mr.K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the borrower and the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner-auction purchaser. The learned counsel representing the Central Bank of India appeared through online. Also heard Mr.Noothalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing M/s The Kirlampudi Sugar Mill Staff and Workers Union, and Mr.Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner in Rev.I.A.No.2 of 2023.
11) Learned Senior Counsel sought to advance arguments with reference to the grounds raised in the review petition.
12) Before embarking upon the aspect of review in the light of the settled legal position, it may be pertinent to note that the review petitioner
- borrower have made unsuccessful attempts in preventing finalization of the auction proceedings in which the auction purchaser was the highest bidder. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the DRT, Visakhapatnam in O.A.No.9 of 2006 against the review petitioner- borrower attained finality. The orders referred to in the earlier paragraphs would go to show that ample opportunity was afforded to the review petitioner / borrower to contest the matters on condition of depositing 8 certain amounts. It failed to comply with the orders, thus committed default on more than two occasions. Even the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in the interest of the workers was not complied with and as such, the Division Bench was constrained to vacate the stay vide order dated 01.12.2023. A perusal of the order dated 04.08.2023 would make it clear that the same was passed with the consent of the review petitioner - borrower. If at all such a conditional order is not just or acceptable, nothing prevented the review petitioner - borrower to seek recourse to remedies available in law.
13) Further, having invited conditional order and failed to comply with the same, the borrower filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 after much water has flown. The failure of the review petitioner / borrower in complying with the orders placed it in a disadvantageous position as a defaulter. Hearing of the review application, as agreed to by it, was subject to the condition of depositing 50% of the amount covered by E.P.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.No.58 of 2006 and by committing a default, the borrower allowed the order to be vacated and as such the review petition deserves no consideration. The subsequent attempt to recall the condition imposed in the order dated 04.08.2023, which was already vacated is nothing short of abuse of process of law. That apart, pursuant to the final orders dated 12.04.2022, the writ petitioner-auction purchaser, as per the affidavit dated 17.08.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 paid the balance 75% bid amount i.e., 9 Rs.21 Crores and sale certificate was issued. The review petitioner/borrower seeking the stay of operation of the sale certificate dated 06.06.2022, filed Writ Petition No. 21499 of 2022. In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser has settled the matter with the workers union and paid E.P. amount in I.D.No.58 of 2006. As such, Mr.N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the Union states that E.P. is not pressed and I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.19320 of 2019 is filed to permit withdrawal of E.P. Under the said circumstances, more particularly in view of the failure to comply with the conditional order, the review petitioner / borrower is disentitled from seeking review of the order dated 12.04.2022 and the review petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. Be that as it may.
14) The scope of review, it is settled position in law, is very limited.
15) Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with review of a judgment or an order is extracted for ready reference:
"Order XLVII Rule 1 -
Application For Review of Judgment:
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error 10 apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
16) A review can be ordered only on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record (See: 1995(1) SCC 170). In Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat1, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, held that a mere erroneous decision per se does not permit the Court to undertake review.
17) In the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambhai2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.
18) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India3 observed and held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The Supreme 1 AIR 2003 Guj.157 2 AIR 2003 SC 2095 3 2000 (6) SC 224 11 Court also held in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another4 as follows:
"22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
19) In Smt.Krishna Pathak Vs. Vinod Shankar Tiwari and Others5 the Court has observed as follows:
"41. In view of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 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 Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Even the judgment given subsequent to the decision in a case can be no ground for entertaining the review. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court. If a counsel has argued a case to his satisfaction and he had not raised the particular point for any reason whatsoever, it cannot be a ground of review for the reason that he was the master of his case and might not have considered it proper to press the same or could have thought that arguing that point would not serve any purpose. If a case has been decided after full consideration of arguments made by a counsel, he cannot be permitted, even under the garb of doing justice or substantial justice, to engage the court again to decide the controversy already decided. If a party is aggrieved of a judgment, it must approach the Higher Court but entertaining a review to re-consider the case would amount to exceeding its jurisdiction, conferred under the limited jurisdiction for the purpose of review. Justice, as explained above, connotes different 4 2008 (8) SCC 612 5 2005 SCC Online ALL 1533 12 meaning to different persons in different contexts, therefore, courts cannot be persuaded to entertain a review application to do justice unless it lies only on the grounds mentioned in the statutory provisions."
20) In Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application Under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not an appeal in disguise. It is observed that 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. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. In the said judgment, after considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had summed up as under:
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.6
(2019) 20 SCC 753 13
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.
21) In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB7 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held that scope of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure is limited and under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is 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 justifying the court to exercise its power of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure.
22) Recently, in S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and others8, the Apex Court while referring to Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (6 supra) and Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (7 supra) held that even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous, the same cannot be a ground to review in exercise of powers Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum, but cannot be a subject matter of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 7 (2020) 2 SCC 677 8 (2023) 13 SCC 515 14
23) Further, discovery of any new fact or evidence necessarily has to be an important or relevant factor to the extent that had it been brought on record at the time when the order was passed, it would have an impact and might have altered the decision. Moreover, absence of such important fact or evidence on record at the time of decision, must not be the result of negligent attitude of the concerned person and therefore such person applying for review is required by law to strictly prove that such fact or evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced, even after exercising due diligence and unless such proof is produced, review application shall not be entertained.
24) The grounds of review in the present case does not satisfy the requirements of review and it is nothing but a desperate attempt of the review petitioner for rehearing of the matter under the guise of review and the same is not permissible in Law.
25) In the light of the above stated legal position and for the conclusions recorded supra, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Rev.I.A.No.4 of 2022 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019 and the same is accordingly dismissed.
26) I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.19320 of 2019 is allowed. 15
27) Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019: One Ms.Aishwarya Ch. claiming to be the daughter of the former Managing Director of the borrower company filed said I.A. seeking to review of the order dated 12.04.2022 on various grounds. Her claim inter alia is that on the death of her father, she became a major shareholder with 87.67% shares in the sugar mill and before disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 12.04.2022, an opportunity should have been afforded to her. She also filed separate Miscellaneous Applications along with orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. From a perusal of the same, it would appear that the Company Law Tribunal passed some orders after the order under review dated 12.04.2022 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019. Admittedly, the review petitioner is not a party to the said Writ Petition. However, the present review petition has been filed without filing an application seeking leave of this Court and on that ground the review application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 is dismissed. As a consequence of the same I.A.Nos.3 of 2023 and 1 of 2024 are also dismissed. Needless to observe that the Review Petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedies in accordance with law.
28) In view of the dismissal of Review Petition and payment of E.P. amount in I.D.No.58 of 2006 by the writ petitioner-auction purchaser, the liability of the borrower pursuant to the order dated 13.09.2017 in 16 I.D.No.58 of 2006 stands extinguished. Therefore, no further adjudication is required in W.P.No.19320 of 2019 and the same is accordingly closed.
29) Further as the review petition is dismissed and the sale certificate dated 06.06.2022 was already issued pursuant to the orders dated 12.04.2022, which has attained finality, W.P.No.21499 of 2022 is dismissed.
30) In view of the satisfaction of the Award dated 13.09.2017 in I.D.No.58 of 2006 and closure of W.P.No.19320 of 2019, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities in W.P.No.18398 of 2022 to Register the Sale Certificate dated 04.06.2022 in favour of the Writ petitioner. Accordingly, W.P.No.18398 of 2022 is disposed of. All other Miscellaneous Applications stands closed. In view of the dismissal of Review Applications and the orders passed in W.P.No.18398 of 2022, nothing survives for adjudication in W.P.No.21517 of 2022. Accordingly, W.P.No.21517 of 2022 is dismissed. No costs.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date:12.09.2025 Ssv 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Rev.I.A.Nos.4 of 2022 and 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019 And W.P.Nos.19320 of 2019; 18398 of 2022; 21499 & 21517 of 2022 Date:12.09.2025 Ssv