9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided against petitioner. - W.P. (C) No. 3821 of 2014 & Review Petition No. 542 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2016 - MR. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J. Petitioner Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Mr. Nakul Mohta, Ms. Parul Shukla and Mr. Rishi Aggarwal, Advs. for Review Petitioner. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr. Vidur Mohan, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Sujit Ghosh with Ms. Kanupriya Bhargava, Advs. for applicant in CM No.23810/2015. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J Review Petition No.542/2014. 1. The petitioner filed this petition impugning the four orders, all dated 21 st March, 2011 of the respondent no.3 Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, intimating to the petitioner the decision taken in the meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee held on 15th March, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Foreign Trade, of denying Deemed Export Benefits (DEB) if the Bill of Entry is in the name of the project authority , as was in the case of the petitioner and accordingly denying the DEB to the petitioner. The petition also impugns the minutes of the said meeting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled; (iv) thus Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply and as per which the claim in the writ petition was barred by time; (v) that repeated representations made by the petitioner and rejection thereof neither extends the period of limitation nor is a satisfactory explanation for delay; (vi) that the petitioner was satisfied with the rejection of its claim and cannot be permitted to revive a stale claim merely because someone else similarly situated had succeeded; and, (vii) that normally a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability and no exceptional ground had been made out by the petitioner. 10. The emphasis of the senior counsel for the petitioner/review applicant has been that there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 12th August, 2014 in as much as though in para 1 of the judgment it has been noted that the petition also impugns the minutes of the meeting dated 15th March, 2011 but in para 11 of the judgment it has been observed that it is not the case of the petitioner that the decision dated 15th March, 2011 was by an authority which was not competent to take the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision dated 15th March, 2011 is irrelevant as the reason which prevailed in the judgment of which review is sought was that the monetary claim in the writ petition was barred by time. Without prejudice thereto, it is also argued that the petitioner itself had submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority which took the decision dated 15th March, 2011 and never challenged its jurisdiction. Further without prejudice, it is argued that the challenge to the competence of the authority is misconceived. 18. The learned ASG further argued that the claim of the petitioner in the petition was based entirely on the judgment dated 26th February, 2014 supra in the writ petition filed by Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. and that cannot be a cause of action for the petitioner. It is argued that a judgment in one case cannot be a cause of action for another case. 19. The learned ASG has even otherwise, on merits also argued that DEB is only for goods manufactured in India but the subject goods were not manufacture in India. 20. It was also contended by the learned ASG that ABL International Ltd. supra has been differentiated in Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iefs and opinions are changing with each day s experience and judgments read by us and cited before us. Inspite of our best efforts, due to repeated adjournments sought, the review petition has remained pending for nearly one and a half years. However if it were to be held that we today are entitled to form a different opinion than what we had formed earlier, the same in our view is coupled with the danger of eroding the faith in the judicial system and the consumers of the judicial system believing that the Judges can be prevailed upon to so change their opinion/judgments. 27. The power of review, in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is confined to cases of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence could not be placed by the parties before the Court at the time of hearing or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 28. The present case does not fall within the aforesaid limitation. We are on the basis of the arguments of the senior counsel for the petitioner/review applicant unable to find any such error apparent on the face of the record. 29. Every one of the arguments now presented befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... characterised as vitiated by error apparent . Review was held to be no means an appeal in disguise whereof an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error, where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say there is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it - only then a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. 32. The present case by no stretch of imagination falls in the category aforesaid. The petitioner here seeks review not on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by the petitioner at the time when the judgment was passed but wants a review on the ground that the decision is erroneous. This was held to be not permissible also in Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170 and in the State Of West Bengal vs Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612. 33. We have also considered whether in the light of the order dated 7 th November, 2014 of the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
