IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-evaluating evidence or arguments previously considered, and that a review can only be granted in cases of clear errors or new evidence not previously available.

ORDER :

1. This review petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that the present review petition may kindly be allowed, and the impugned judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 12.12.2023 may kindly be reviewed/clarified and it be clarified that the appropriate adjudicating authority shall decide the case on merits without being influenced by the observations made by the Hon’ble Court in the order dated 12.12.2023.

Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the review petitioner.”

2. The review-petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16732/2023 (alongwith connected petitions filed by other companies) against the orders of provisional attachment of property under Section 24 (3) & 24 (4)(a)(i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PBPT Act’); the said petitions were dismissed vide the judgment 12.12.2023 under review.

3. Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Pushkar Taimni submits that this Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated 12.12.2023 did not clarify that the Adjudicating Authority shall decide the case under Section 26 of the PBPT Act independently and without being influenced by the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the aforementioned judgment, and therefore, the said judgment is required to be reviewed, qua the said aspect of the case.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that this Hon’ble Court, while passing the judgment under view, has not considered that the two orders dated 28.07.2023 and 07.08.2023 passed with same DIN are violative of the mandatory CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, which mandates that every notice/ order shall be passed with an independent DIN.

3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the review petitioner’s case falls under the exception provided in Section 2 (9) of the PBPT Act. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondents relied upon the statements of certain persons, however, the correctness and reliability of such statements qua the case of the petitioner company were not dealt by this Hon’ble Court, and therefore, the judgment dated 12.12.2023 needs to be reviewed by this Hon’ble Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that this Hon’ble Court had already dealt with all the issues in the judgment dated 12.12.2023 under review, and therefore, no case for review is made out, and the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.1. Learned counsel further submits that in the judgment dated 12.12.2023, this Hon’ble Court has dealt with each and every submission of the review-petitioner, and only thereafter, a detailed judgment under review has been passed, and thus, on that count alone, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the review petitioner had preferred the aforesaid writ petition against the orders of provisional attachment of property under Section 24 (3) & 24 (4)(a)(i) PBPT Act, which was dismissed alongwith other connected petitions of other companies, vide the judgment 12.12.2023 under review.

7. This Court further observes that in the review jurisdiction, there is a very limited scope for interference, more particularly, in light of a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs V. Narayana Reddy and Ors. Civil Appeals No. 5503-04 of 2022, decided on 18.08.2022), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder:-

“13. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i)