9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Calcutta High Court in case of Joginder Pal Kapoor Versus R L Plantation Pvt. Ltd. [ 2006 (3) TMI 814 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] wherein it is held that ' We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.' In view of above settled legal position of law, when the issue as to whether the applicant original petitioner would fall within the local authority or not is decided by this Court, the same cannot be reviewed again as it would amount to sitting in appeal by this Court itself on its own judgment and order. Conclusion - i) Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect of Explanation added by Finance Act, 2002 in the said judgment to hold that term local authority which came to be defined under the explanation to section 10 (20) of the Income Tax Act to mean only a Panchayat, Municipality, Municipal Committee and Cantonment board only and therefore, an industrial township was not akin to a municipality and therefore, not a local authority under the said provision. But in the case of the petitioner, section 2 (69) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 defines local authority to include any other authority entrusted by the Government to control or manage a local fund. It was therefore, submitted that in view of the relevant provisions of Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 and Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, Vapi Notified Authority would be a local authority . 6. Reference was made to para no. 36 of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2024 under review. It was pointed out that mistake is committed by stating that Notification No. 12/2017 refers only to local authority and therefore, decision of Hon ble Apex Court would be applicable overlooking the contention regarding the distinct statutory scheme governing the facts of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und is also considered in detail in para no. 36 and thereafter applying Notification No. 12/2017 which does not refer to any other authority, the decision of Hon ble Apex Court is relied upon. 11. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the submissions made by both the sides to review the judgment and order dated 24.04.2024, it would be necessary to consider the scope of review of the judgment. 12. It is true that in para no.20 of the judgment dated 24.04.2024 the decision in case of JSW Energy Ltd.(supra) is inadvertently stated to be cited by the petitioner whereas same was cited by learned AGP for the respondent. Therefore, there is a mistake apparent on record in referring to the said decision rendered by Bombay High Court in case of JSW Energy Ltd.(supra). It also appears that on consideration of the said decision, it ought not to have been referred to even though cited by learned AGP as it has no relevance to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 13. In that view of the matter para no.20 of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2024 is hereby ordered to be deleted as in absence of the contention of the petitioner regarding oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh, 1 Moo PC 117 that an Order made by the Court was final and could not be altered. nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the Judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common law, the same power which the Courts of record and statute have of rectifying mistakes which have crept in House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own Judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details of Judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in Order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies. Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under: It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court Judgment in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [2004 SCC 406] , was not considered by the Division Bench. According to him, that decision ousted the jurisdiction of the Company Court particularly because it was found that one of the secured creditors Punjab National Bank had filed a claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against this very company. The learned Counsel further urged that the question of adjudication as also the recovery of a debt fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery tribunal and, therefore, a sale Ordered by the Company Court after the claim was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was obviously an act of recovery against the company which act clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and was clearly outside the jurisdiction of the company Court. Therefore, the non-consideration of this Judgment by the earlier Division Bench dismissing the appeals against the confirmation of sale, was an error apparent on the face of the record. In Order to buttress his contention that the non-consideration of the earlier Supreme Court Judgment by itself becomes an error apparent on the face of the record, the learned Counsel drew our atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasise that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XLVII, rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was. passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words any other sufficient reason must mean a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule. See Chhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112). This conclusion was reiterated by the Judicial Committee in Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath(AIR 1934 PC 213] and was adopted by our Federal Court in Hari Shankar Pal v. Anath Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Baseless Catholics and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 526 . Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. in T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa and Anr (AIR 1954 SC 440) this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad is Hague and Ors.(AIR 1955 SC 233) it was held: ...it is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned Counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated. Mr. Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, CJ in - Batuk K Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality' (AIR 1953 Bombay 133), that no error could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
