Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27284 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Supreme Industrial Corporation And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Mishra,Ashok Nath Tripathi,Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Smt.Anjali Upadhyaya
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
In re : Civil Misc. Review Application No. 2 of 2018
This application is preferred to review the judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the review-petitioner that the Court has taken note of the submission of ITCC. The Court proceeded with assumption that on abolition of issuance of ITCC by circular dated 10.02.2004, the requirement is of submitting of ITRs only in the prescribed proforma. Reference of ITCC relates to ITRs. According to learned counsel for the review-petitioner, the assumption of the Court is not correct as the ITR and ITCC are two absolutely different things and, as such, the bidders who did not submit ITCC could have not been treated eligible for bidding. It is further stated that ITR does not reflect turn over of the assessee for a particular financial/assessment year. The facts relating to turn over could have been satisfied only by ITCC. The Court materially erred while placing the ITRs at the same pedestal with ITCC.
Having considered the arguments advanced and all the relevant facts, we do not find any reason to review the judgment dated 29.08.2018.
It is well settled that as per Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a judgment or an order can be reviewed on discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant, such important matter could have not been produced by the applicant at the time when the judgment, order or decree, as the case may be, was passed, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record exists. The power to review may also be exercised on having sufficient reason. In the case in hand, the only eventuality that may exists is of "sufficient reason". The sufficient reason for the purpose of review means the reason to establish that the Court acted contrary to the facts and/or in ignorance to any material fact. If the Court has ignored a settled law cited before it then too looking to the other relevant facts the Court may review its order by accepting the same as "sufficient reason". However, this term, in no manner, can be acquitted with the grounds or reasons which may be available to a party for availing further remedy to challenge the order sought to be reviewed. In the instant matter, as already stated, the applicant is alleging misconstrued identification of the ITCC which discloses the turn over of a bidder. Such an argument may be a good reason for further appeal, if any, or for approaching Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, but, in no case, for getting the judgment reviewed.
The review application, for the reasons, mentioned above, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Shubham .
(Yashwant Varma, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)