NDLI: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Supreme Court Rules
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Review Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: A Batch of five Review Petitions was filed by the Review Petitioners, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. Whether the Review Petitioners were able to make out any case within the ambit of Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, read with Order XLVII of CPC, for reviewing the impugned judgment.Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. XLVII – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII – Review Petitioners placed heavy reliance on the observations made by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 7976 of 2019 (Paschim Anchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Raman Ispat Private Limited and Others) and submitted that the court in the impugned judgment had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism contained in Section 53, as also failed to consider other provisions of the IBC – Propriety:Held: The said submission of the review petitioners was outrightly rejected for the simple reason that any passing reference of the impugned judgment made by the Bench of the equal strength could not be a ground for review – It is well settled proposition of law that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another co-ordinate 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 the larger Bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise the law would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions – The submissions made by the Review Petitioners that the court in the impugned decision had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism as contained in s.53 and failed to consider other provisions of IBC, are factually incorrect – As evident from the bare reading of the impugned judgment, the Court had considered not only the Waterfall mechanism u/s. 53 of IBC but also the other provisions of the IBC for deciding the priority for the purpose of distributing the proceeds from the sale as liquidation assets – Therefore, the well-considered judgment sought to be reviewed does not fall within the scope and ambit of Review. [Paras 20, 24, 27] Review – Grounds of Review:Held: (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) 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; (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review; (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”; (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”; (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided; (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions; (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. [Para 16]
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 963
Petitioner	Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
Respondent	State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.
SCR	[2023] 15 S.C.R. 225
Judgement Date	2023-10-31
Case Number	1620

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr.

Shiv Mohan Singh Vs. State (delhi Administration)

Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs. Prem Lata

Coffee Board, Bangalore Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras & Anr.

Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

State of U.p. Vs. Sanjay Kumar

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr.

Shiv Mohan Singh Vs. State (delhi Administration)

Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs. Prem Lata

Coffee Board, Bangalore Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras & Anr.

Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

State of U.p. Vs. Sanjay Kumar

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.