9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e do not consider this to be a fit case where any interference is called for, considering the limited scope of review. Appeal dismissed. 11.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. - 804 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2007 - Arijit Pasayat and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ. [Judgment per : Arijit Pasayat, J.]. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Review Petition filed by the appellants. This is in essence the second journey of the appellants in respect of a Writ Petition (W.P. No. 522/90) filed before the High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 3-3-1994. The same was filed for quashing the proceedings initiated by respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find that no such argument is recorded by the High Court or answered . If it was the contention of the appellants that the High Court had not answered an argument that had been advanced before it, they should have approached the High Court in review. As it is, we are of the view that only the arguments recorded by the High Court and answered require our consideration. The appeal is dismissed with costs." 2.A review petition was filed before the High Court, inter alia, taking the stand that this Court had permitted filing of a review. The same was filed purportedly on the basis of the observations made by this Court to the effect that it was the contention of the appellants that the High Court had not answered an argument that had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before this Court it has been categorically stated that no such argument was advanced. 7.The High Court's findings are in the following terms : "Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that since in the facts and circumstances of the present case extended period of five years under Section 11A could not have been invoked by the respondent authorities, the order deserves to be reviewed. Keeping in view the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the counsel was asked to point out from the record whether such a contention had been raised before the High Court in the writ petition and any such ground was taken in the S.L.P. before the Apex Court. Learned counsel frank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the explanation in Rule 1 of the Order XLVII which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. (in all the Appeals) v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur [AIR 1964 SC 1372] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
