Bombay High Court
Essel Corporate Llp vs Cyquator Media Services Private Ltd on 23 April, 2024
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
12. RPL 3696-24 @ Ors..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 3696 OF 2024
Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
In the matter between
Axis Finance Limited ...Plaintiff
V/s
Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 3699 OF 2024
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 3701 OF 2024
Mr. Prathamesh Kamat with Ms. Shreni Shetty and Ms. Antara Kalambi
i/b ANB Legal for Review Petitioner.
Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Hrushi Narvekar, Mr. Nishit Dhruva and Ms.
Niyati Merchant i/b MDP and Partners for Plaintiff.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 23RD APRIL, 2024 P.C. : REVIEW PETITION (L) 3699 of 2024
1. This Petition on behalf of the Defendant No.1, in Summons for Judgment (L) No. 4878 of 2021 in Commercial Summary Suit No. 14 of 2021, seeks review of the order dated 13th December, 2023.
2. Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner would submit that despite this Court observing in paragraphs 60.6 to Nikita Gadgil 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 00:35:09 :::
12. RPL 3696-24 @ Ors..doc 67 that there are triable issues, which cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner, as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IDBI Trusteesheep Services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited1, as well as in the case of B. L. Kashyap and Sons Limited Vs.JMS Steels and Power Corporation and Anr. 2, instead of granting unconditional leave this Court has granted leave to defend subject to depositing a sum of Rs. 60,36,90,578.19.
3. Learned Counsel would submit that, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record as per Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and urges this Court to review the order of conditional leave and grant unconditional leave to defend the suit.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Tamboly, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents opposes the request for review relying upon the same decisions in the cases of IDBI Trusteesheep Services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited(supra) and B. L. Kashyap and Sons Limited Vs.JMS Steels and Power Corporation and Anr. (supra) and would submit that this Court has clearly found and which is undisputed that the Defendant No. 1 is liable to the Plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 1 (2017) 1 SCC 568 2 (2022) 3 SCC 294 Nikita Gadgil 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 00:35:09 :::
12. RPL 3696-24 @ Ors..doc 60,36,90,578.19 and that even if the Defendant raises triable issues, the Trial Judge may impose conditions either of making payments into the Court or furnishing security and that this Court has done exactly that and therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the Petition for review be dismissed.
5. Mr. Tamboly, relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case is Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors. 3 and submits that in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, it is not admissible for an erroneous decision be reheard and corrected and review Petition cannot be allowed to be appealed and therefore the Review Petition be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the rival contentions and keeping in mind the principles led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors. (supra) as above, I am of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor any other criteria for review under Order 47 3 (2021) 13 SCC 1 Nikita Gadgil 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 00:35:09 :::
12. RPL 3696-24 @ Ors..doc Rule 1 of the CPC have been met and therefore, the Review Petition is hereby rejected.
Review Petitions No. 3696 of 2024 and 3701 of 2024
6. Both the learned Counsel submit that these Petitions can be disposed of by modifying the order dated 13 th December, 2023 to the effect that the operative part of the order applies only to Defendant No.1. Ordered accordingly.
7. Ergo, the two Petitions to accordingly stand disposed.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Nikita Gadgil 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2024 00:35:09 :::