9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024, against which, First Appeal From Order No.411 of 2024 (M/s M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Iftikhar Alam) has been filed by the plaintiff-applicants before this Court that has been connected with this review application. TWO ASPECTS INVOLVED 3. There are following two aspects associated with the present review application:- (i) Maintainability/entertainability of the review application in view of the subsequent order passed by the trial court, and (ii) Merits of grounds, on which review has been sought. COUNSEL HEARD 4. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava as well as Sri Arvind Srivastava separately, learned counsel for the applicants in review and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, for the respondent. MAINTAINABILITY/ ENTERTAINABILITY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: 5. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and, to some extent, by the Court itself, that since the order of remand sought to be reviewed has already been given effect to and the trial court has decided the injunction a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submits that ratio laid down in Smt. Yasmeen Zia (supra) would be read in relation to the decree and appeal arising therefrom and the said analogy cannot be applied in a case where review of remand order is sought. As regards the judgment of Supreme Court in Nagesh Datta Shetti (supra), he submits that in the said case, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court, aggrieved primarily by that part of the order of learned Single Judge who had remanded the matter to the tribunal and, though the appeal was admitted, the tribunal, in absence of an order of stay, finally decided the rights of the concerned party and the Supreme Court, in peculiar facts of that particular case, rendered its decision. ANALYSIS OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on maintainability/entertainability of the review application in the light of subsequent decision on injunction application, this Court finds that substantive provision of review of any judgment or order is contained under Section 114 of the Code and is governed by the procedure laid down under Order XLVII. The power of the appellate court to remand a case to the trial court is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand order has been given effect to in terms of a subsequent decision, the same would not render the challenge as infructuous or not maintainable. 11. The Court may also notice that the instant review application was filed more than four months prior to the subsequent decision made by the trial court and though, this Court, by first order dated 11.09.2023 passed on the instant review application, made it clear that mere filing or pendency of the review application would not be deemed to passing of an interim order affecting operation of the order sought to be reviewed or further proceedings pursuant thereto, the mere fact that the injunction application has been decided on 30.01.2024, the review application cannot be held to be not maintainable and the challenge made cannot be thrown away on the ground of maintainability. CONCLUSION ON FIRST ASPECT 12. In view of the above discussion, the applicants succeed on the first aspect and the instant review application is held to be maintainable. Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the same on merits. MERITS OF REVIEW APPLICATION CONTENTION OF APPLICANTS: 13. Learned counsel for the applicants, on merits of the review appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and others, AIR 2024 (SC) 1310; (b). Ganga Prasad Rai vs. Kedar Nath Rai and another, (2019) 3 ARC 624; (c). Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491; (d). S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464; (e). Board of Control of Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741; (f). Mukhtar Ahmad vs. Addl. District Judge, 1978 ARC 118; (g). The Selection Committee for Admission to the Medical and Dental College, Bangalore vs. M.P. Nagaraj, AIR 1972 Mys 44; (h). Natesa Naicker vs. Sambanda Chettiar, AIR 1941 Madras 918; (i). Tinkari Sen vs. Dulal Chandra, AIR 1967 Cal. 518; (j). M.M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 666; (k). M.V. Elisabeth vs. Harwan Investment & Trading (P) Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1014; (l). A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602; (m). Green View Tea & Industries vs. Collector, Golaghat, (2004) 4 SCC 122; (n). Common Cause vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667; (o). Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005) 4 SCC 741; (p). Rajesh D. Darbar vs. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni, (2003) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.01.2024. 17. This Court is not hearing an appeal against the order dated 30.01.2024, inasmuch as, the said order is already under challenge in First Appeal From Order No.411 of 2024 and, therefore, all the contentions based upon any document or otherwise, are still open to be argued by both the sides in the said appeal. The review is restricted to the grounds mentioned under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. The law as regards review is well settled and there is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the judgments cited on behalf of the applicants but it is necessary to give a broader view of the review jurisdiction of a Court of law. 18. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being the substantive provision for review, clearly uses the words " the Court may make such order thereon". It means that power to allow or reject a review application depends on discretion of the Court in given facts and circumstances of a particular case and the Court is not bound to allow the application in every case and situation. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Supreme Court observed that a review is, by no means, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or correction of a mistake and not to substitute a new view. Such powers can be exercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665 and in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320, the Supreme Court observed that mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking review jurisdiction. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. CONCLUSION ON SECOND ASPECT 21. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the ratio laid down in the authorities referred to hereinabove and after carefully examining the order sought to be reviewed in the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that while remanding the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision on the injunction application, this Court did not record any finding on merits of the rival contentions. The only reason for remanding the matter was the cryptic nature of the order dated 10.10.2022, by which, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
