IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
West Bengal financial Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Efcalon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review applications concerning stamp duty (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. impugning decisions related to stamp duty obligations (Para 6 , 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. distinction between error and mistake in legal orders (Para 9 , 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. limits of review jurisdiction based on statute (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 38) |
| 5. conditions under which a court can review its judgment (Para 40 , 41 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
SOUMEN SEN, J.
1. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have filed review applications separately with regard to the payment of stamp duty as directed by the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2023. This judgment is under review.
2. The grounds are different. However, it pertains to a direction by the Hon’ble Division Bench for payment of stamp duty on instrument dated 7th July, 2008 described as Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
3. The first review applicant, West Bengal Financial Corporation and the second review applicant Efcalon Tie Up Private Limited for the sake of convenience and brevity are described as Corporation and Efcalon respectively.
4. The order under review was challenged by WBFC in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary no. 7735 of 2024. The said review application
Gulam Abbas & Ors. v. Mulla Abdul Kadar (dead) Through his executors
India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.
Chandmall Chopra & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa
Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors.
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Another
The obligation to pay stamp duty lies with the party relying on the instrument, and the court's review power is limited to evident errors, not merits.
A review petition cannot be based on arguments or judgments not previously cited, and must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record to be maintainable.
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.