9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e delay condonation application, this Court is of the view that the delay of 21 days may be condoned. 5. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 21 days which has occurred in filing the instant civil review, is hereby condoned. Civil Review No. 71 of 2024: 6. The instant civil review has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for modification of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in W.P. (T) No. 5475 of 2023. 7. Before proceeding to examine the principle of review as to whether the same is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not, it needs to refer herein the factual background which reads as under: A tender for Rural Electrification Works under Din Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojna, hereinafter referred as DDUGJY, project in XIIth Plan for Giridih, Bokaro and Dhanbad districts of Jharkhand was floated by JBVNL on 11.09.2015 being NIT No. 249/PR/JBVNL/15-16, 250/PR/JBVNL/15-16 and 251/PR/JBVNL/15-16. The writ petitioner on being selected as the successful bidder, two separate Letter of Awards (LoA) each for supply of materials and service of erection were issued to the writ petitioner, wherein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Contingency from Supply Bills and to release the amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- held up as kept back on account of Income Tax Contingency by the Respondent JBVNL, respectively but the same having not been paid heed by the appellant/respondent-JBVNL, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(T) No. 5475 of 2023. 8. It is evident on the basis of the factual background that the matter was adjudicated by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed in W.P.(T) No. 5475 of 2023. The operative part of the order needs to be referred herein, which reads as under: "17. Any unjust retention of money or property of another shall be against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The unauthorized deductions from the running bills of the petitioner-Firm are patently illegal. Such deductions caused loses to the petitioner-Firm which filed its Income Tax retuns but was deprived of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- and thereby suffered business or alteast interest losses. On the other hand, the JBVNL was unjustly enriched and need to restitute the petitioner-Firm. The refund of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- must therefore ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforementioned amount has been retained as "Keep Back Amount" for meeting the future liability under the Income Tax Act, 1961 also seems to be unjustified. As it appears on a cursory glance at the provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, once an amount is deducted towards TDS liability the same should have been deposited so that the assessee shall get the benefit thereof in his income tax return. 3. However, on the request of Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned senior standing counsel for the JBVNL, this matter is adjourned by one week to enable the JBVNL to take a conscious decision in the matter whether or not to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- deducted from the running bills of the petitioner. 4. For that purpose, this matter shall be posted on 21st March 2024." 20. In response thereof, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed stating that in terms of Clauses 10.1 and 10.7 of the General Conditions of Contract whereunder the Contractor is solely and entirely responsible for any taxes including income tax, the JBVNL is empowered to adjust such amount from the price/bills released to the Contractor. The JBVNL has further stated that in case the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court has been taken at the highest level of the Managing Director of JBVNL. Therefore, we are of the definite opinion that the JBVNL must be saddled with cost of Rs.5 Lacs which shall be recovered from the Managing Director. 23. This writ petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms." 9. The instant review petition has been filed for review of the direction as under paragraphs-18 and 22. The direction has been passed as under paragraph-18 holding the writ petitioner entitled for interest for the withheld amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- per clause 10.7.4 of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015, casting liability upon the review petitioner who was respondent to the writ petition. 10. The direction has been passed as under paragraph-22 saddling the cost of Rs.5 lakhs to be recovered from the Managing Director, JBVNL which is another ground to file this review petition. 11. This Court has perused the prayer wherein it has been prayed for passing appropriate orders for the removal of interest liability over the withheld amount and cost imposed upon the Managing Director of the respondents. For ready reference, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: 'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ..... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality." 14. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but without hearing him the said direction has been passed. 18. Learned Senior Standing Counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has filed the instant review petition. 19. Since the law is settled that to review the order passed by the Court is very limited and order of review can only be passed in the circumstances of availability of certain conditions as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. which is pari materia to Rule 203 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, wherein, the proposition has been laid down to entertain the review, has held at paragraphs-16.1 to 16.8 which reads as under:- "16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r within 15 days or, if consumer opts, be adjusted within two subsequent bills. The Distribution Licensee shall pay to the consumer interest charges at the rate equivalent to the delay payment surcharge as per tariff on the excess amount outstanding on account of such wrong billing from the date of payment till the date of refund or adjustment in subsequent bills." 24. It is evident from the said clause that if the consumer has paid any excess amount, it shall be refunded to the consumer within 15 days or, if consumer opts, be adjusted within two subsequent bills. The Distribution Licensee shall pay to the consumer interest charges at the rate equivalent to the delay payment surcharge as per tariff on the excess amount outstanding on account of such wrong billing from the date of payment till the date of refund or adjustment in subsequent bills. 25. It is thus evident that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order, has taken into consideration the said clause wherein in case of excess payment, the amount is to be refunded and on that count, the interest will have to be paid to the consumer which will be at the rate equivalent to the delay payment surcharge as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
