Date of the Judgment: May 04, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 429
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a review petition be entertained if it does not present any new grounds for reconsideration? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, dismissing a review petition filed in an insolvency case. The Court found no merit in the review petition, upholding its earlier decision. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi.
Case Background
The case involves a statutory appeal that was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court. The appeal was filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court had previously reviewed the facts and circumstances, particularly paragraphs 9, 10, and 17 of the original judgment, and found no reason to interfere. Subsequently, a review petition was filed by a Power of Attorney holder of the original appellant, seeking a reconsideration of the Court’s decision. The Court, however, found no grounds to entertain the review petition.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Date not specified in the document] | Statutory appeal filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. |
| [Date not specified in the document] | Supreme Court dismissed the statutory appeal. |
| [Date not specified in the document] | Review Petition filed by Power of Attorney holder of the original appellant. |
| May 04, 2022 | Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court had previously dismissed the statutory appeal filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, after reviewing the facts and circumstances. The present review petition was filed seeking a reconsideration of the order. The Court found no new grounds to entertain the review petition.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This section deals with appeals to the Supreme Court. The Court considered whether the facts and circumstances of the case warranted any interference under this provision.
“The statutory appeal preferred under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was dismissed by this Court after being satisfied that the facts and circumstances on record, especially paragraphs 9, 10 and 17 of the judgment under appeal, did not call for any interference.”
Arguments
The review petitioner, a Power of Attorney holder of the original appellant, argued for a review of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. However, the Supreme Court found that the review petition did not present any new grounds or reasons that would justify a review of its previous order. The Court noted that the review petition did not make out any case for the exercise of its review jurisdiction.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Review Petition |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues for determination in the review petition. The primary issue was whether the review petition presented any new grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier decision.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the review petition presented any new grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier decision. | The Court found that the review petition did not present any new grounds or reasons that would justify a review of its previous order. |
Authorities
No specific authorities were cited in the judgment.
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| None | N/A | N/A |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Review Petition by Power of Attorney holder of the original appellant | Dismissed; The Court found no new grounds or reasons to justify a review of its previous order. |
“We have gone through the contents of the Review Petition, which do not make out any case for exercise of our jurisdiction in review. This Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed.”
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| None | N/A |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of any new grounds or reasons in the review petition that would warrant a reconsideration of its earlier decision. The Court emphasized that the review petition did not present any case for the exercise of its review jurisdiction. The Court’s focus was on the procedural correctness and the lack of any substantial grounds for review.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Correctness | 60% |
| Lack of New Grounds | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Review petitions will not be entertained if they do not present any new grounds for reconsideration.
- ✓ The Supreme Court will not revisit its earlier decisions unless there is a substantial reason to do so.
- ✓ The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate why a review is necessary.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the principle that review petitions must present new grounds for reconsideration and that the Supreme Court will not revisit its earlier decisions without a valid reason. The ratio decidendi is that a review petition will be dismissed if it does not present any new grounds for reconsideration.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the original appellant, finding no merit in the petition. The Court reiterated that review petitions must present new grounds for reconsideration and that the Court will not revisit its earlier decisions without a valid reason.