[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: In a verdict impacting scope of review petitions, the Supreme Court has held that review of a judgment cannot be allowed merely because of any passing reference made against it by another bench of equal strength and the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the case on that ground.
A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi rejected a review petition seeking re-examination of last year’s verdict pertaining to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a firm Rainbow Papers Limited.The review was sought on the basis of observation made by another bench, which had said that certain provisions of insolvency law were not considered while deciding the case.
“It is a well-settled proposition of law that a coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same strength. If a bench does not accept as correct the decision on a question of law of another bench of equal strength, the only proper course to adopt would be to refer the matter to a larger bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise the law would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions,” the bench said.
The verdict assumes significance as a three-judge bench of the apex court recently decided to go ahead with its hearing to decide whether its verdict of upholding stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act needed to be re-examined. Even the Centre argued that the scrutiny of a 3-judge bench verdict by another bench of the same strength would set a wrong precedent.
Refusing to review the verdict, the bench said the plea of review petitioners deserves to be outrightly rejected for the simple reason that any passing reference to the impugned judgment made by the bench of equal strength could not be a ground for review. The court said that the ground taken in the petition that the court had not examined Section 53 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) was incorrect as all provisions of the IBC were referred in the verdict for deciding the priority for the purpose of distributing the proceeds from the sale as liquidation assets.
“Apart from the well-settled legal position that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review, the submissions made by the learned counsels for the review petitioners that the court, in the impugned decision, had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism as contained in Section 53 and failed to consider other provisions of IBC, are factually incorrect,” the bench said.
Delving into the scope of review jurisdiction, the bench said a judgment is open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record but a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar (now retired), Dinesh Maheshwari(now retired) and C T Ravikumar had last year passed judgement upholding all provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act last year.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi on October 18 agreed to examine whether the verdict be referred for reconsideration.
A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi rejected a review petition seeking re-examination of last year’s verdict pertaining to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a firm Rainbow Papers Limited.The review was sought on the basis of observation made by another bench, which had said that certain provisions of insolvency law were not considered while deciding the case.
“It is a well-settled proposition of law that a coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same strength. If a bench does not accept as correct the decision on a question of law of another bench of equal strength, the only proper course to adopt would be to refer the matter to a larger bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise the law would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions,” the bench said.
The verdict assumes significance as a three-judge bench of the apex court recently decided to go ahead with its hearing to decide whether its verdict of upholding stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act needed to be re-examined. Even the Centre argued that the scrutiny of a 3-judge bench verdict by another bench of the same strength would set a wrong precedent.
Refusing to review the verdict, the bench said the plea of review petitioners deserves to be outrightly rejected for the simple reason that any passing reference to the impugned judgment made by the bench of equal strength could not be a ground for review. The court said that the ground taken in the petition that the court had not examined Section 53 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) was incorrect as all provisions of the IBC were referred in the verdict for deciding the priority for the purpose of distributing the proceeds from the sale as liquidation assets.
“Apart from the well-settled legal position that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review, the submissions made by the learned counsels for the review petitioners that the court, in the impugned decision, had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism as contained in Section 53 and failed to consider other provisions of IBC, are factually incorrect,” the bench said.
Delving into the scope of review jurisdiction, the bench said a judgment is open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record but a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar (now retired), Dinesh Maheshwari(now retired) and C T Ravikumar had last year passed judgement upholding all provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act last year.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi on October 18 agreed to examine whether the verdict be referred for reconsideration.
#Coordinate #bench #observations #ground #review #Supreme #Court
