Recenty on Monday, The Allahabad High Court dismissed a review application filed by M/S Vaid Organics And Chemical Industries Ltd., seeking to overturn a judgment and order dated 22.02.2023.
The case was heard by Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Manish Kumar.
The review application had been filed by the applicant, represented by Senior Advocate Sri Sandeep Dixit, who argued that the judgment had erroneously considered the U.P. Small Industries Development Corporation (UPSIDC) to be a Statutory Authority. According to the applicant’s counsel, UPSIDC only acquired Statutory Authority status in 2018, and till 27.06.2018, it operated as a company under the Companies Act. This error, they claimed, was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and warranted a review.
In the words of Senior Advocate Sri Sandeep Dixit, representing M/S Vaid Organics And Chemical Industries Ltd., during the court proceedings, “Till 27.06.2018, it continued to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act and did not have the status of a Statutory Authority. On account of the said fact, an error apparent on the face of the record has occurred in the judgement and order dated 22.02.2023 in so far as we have considered UPSIDC to be a Statutory Authority.”
To support their argument, the applicant’s counsel referred to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP versus Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh, 1989 (2) SCC 505, emphasizing that it should have applied to the case instead of the judgment in ITC Ltd. versus State of U.P. 2011 (7) SCC 493.
However, the High Court, in its order dated 31st July 2023, rejected the review application..the court, held that the review jurisdiction is not an avenue to re-hear the original matter or to correct an erroneous decision. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments to clarify the limited scope of a review application.
The bench noted, “The scope of a review application is limited. The Court may correct an error apparent on the face of the record or interfere on any other ground analogous to such ground, but it cannot correct an erroneous decision for that is the scope of appellate jurisdiction.”
The Court further emphasized that it had not solely relied on the ITC Ltd. case and had considered various factors, including equitable considerations, in arriving at its previous judgment. The judges also reiterated that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise and can only be allowed on specific grounds, such as an error apparent on the face of the record.
With the review application dismissed, the judgment and order dated 22.02.2023, which had favored the State of U.P., stand upheld.
Case Name: – M/S Vaid Organics And Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko. Vs State Of U.P
Case No.: CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. – 41 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Manish Kumar
Order dated: 31.07.2023