Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Mafatlal Industries Limited And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 20 April, 2023

Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Bharati Dangre

2023:BHC-OS:3411-DB

                                                 1/3                      1 RPW(L) 1-19.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                  REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.1 OF 2019
                                                IN
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2982 OF 2016
                                               WITH
                                  NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 34 OF 2019
                                                IN
                                  REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 1 OF 2019


               Mafatlal Industries Limited and Anr           ..     Petitioners
                                        Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and 3 ors            ..     Respondents

                                                       ...

Mr. R.A. Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ashish Kamat, Ms.Aakanksha Saxena, Mr.M.S. Federal, Mr.Murtaza Federal, Ms.Rahna Mulla - Feroze, Mr.Veer Ashar i/b M/s.Federal & Company for the Petitioner/Applicants. Mr.Kedar Dighe, AGP for the State/Respondent nos.1 to 3. Ms.Bhakti Mehta and Ms.Krishna B Moorthy i/b M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent no.4.

CORAM: R.D. DHANUKA AND BHARATI DANGRE, JJ DATED : 20th APRIL 2023 P.C:-

1 Notice of Motion is taken out by the Petitioners for condoning the delay of 86 days in filing of Review Petition. Since this Court has heard the Review Petition on merits, for the Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 14:04:07 ::: 2/3 1 RPW(L) 1-19.doc reasons recorded in the Review Petition, we condone delay of 86 days in filing the Review Petition.

2 Notice of Motion stand disposed off.

3 By this Review Petition filed by the original Petitioners, the Review Petitioners seek recall of the order passed by this Court on 14th and 16th August 2018, thereby dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner.

4 Mr.Rafique Dada, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to some of the paragraphs of the reasons recorded by the Division Bench of this Court, and submit that the Division Bench did not appreciate that the Petitioners were claiming to be the lessees of the subject property, and thus, having not considered this aspect in the entire order, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

5 The Division Bench of this Court has extensively dealt with all the issues which were urged by the Petitioners. It is not the argument of the Petitioners that this argument which is advanced across the bar and raised in the Review Petition, though argued before the Division Bench, has not been considered.

Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the Review Petitioners to file the proceedings available in law, in our view, no case is made out for recall of the order passed by this Court. The Petitioners seek to re-argue the matter on issues already dealt with, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 14:04:07 ::: 3/3 1 RPW(L) 1-19.doc 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out.

6 Review Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 14:04:07 :::