Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
State Tax Officer and Another – Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020
WITH
Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary – Petitioner
Versus
State Tax Officer and Another – Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No. 1621 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020
WITH
State Bank of India – Petitioner
Versus
Rainbow Papers Limited and Another – Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No. 1622 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020
WITH
Chandra Prakash Jain – Petitioner
Versus
State Tax Officer – Respondent
Review Petition (Civil) No. 236 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020
WITH
Indian Overseas Bank – Petitioner
Versus
State Tax Officer and Another – Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No. 1623 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020
Decided On : 31-10-2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Constitution of India – Article 137 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XLVII of Part IV – Review jurisdiction – In a Civil Proceeding, application for review is entertained only on grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and in a Criminal Proceeding on the ground of error apparent on face of record – However, neither Order XLVII CPC nor Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules limits remedy of review only to parties judgment under review – Even a third party to proceedings, if he considers himself to be an “aggrieved person,” may take recourse to remedy of review petition – Quintessence is that person should be aggrieved by judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect – A party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of case – Normal principle is that judgment pronounced by Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so – Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise – Change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. (Paras 7, 10, 15 and 16)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Review of Judgment – Any passing reference of impugned judgment made by Bench of equal strength could not be a ground for review – A co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of same strength – If a Bench does not accept as correct decision on a question of law of another Bench of equal strength, only proper course to adopt would be to refer the matter to larger Bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise law would be thrown into state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Present batch of five Review Petitions seeks to review common Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. Both appeals were preferred by State Tax Officer-appellant.
Findings of Court:
Well-considered judgment sought to be reviewed does not fall within scope and ambit of Review. Counsel for Review Petitioners have failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on face of record in impugned judgment, and have failed to bring case within parameters laid down by this Court in various decision for reviewing impugned judgment.
Result : Review Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. This batch of five Review Petitions seeks to review the common Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. Both the said appeals were preferred by the State Tax Officer-appellant.
2. Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 was preferred by the Appellant-State Tax Officer against the Respondent-Rainbow Papers Limited (Corporate Debtor), being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCLAT’) dismissing the Company Appeal (At) (INs) No. 404 of 2019 filed by the appellant. The said company Appeal was filed against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, rejecting the Application being I.A. No. 224/271/272/337 of 2018 and P-01/2019 in CP No. (IB) 88/9/NCLT/AHM/2017 filed by the appellants, in which it was held that the appellant cannot claim first charge over the property of the Corporate Debtor, as Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GVAT Act’) cannot prevail over Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the IBC).
3. Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 was preferred by the appellant-State Tax Officer against the Respondents-Mr. Chandra Prakash Jain and M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd., being aggrieved by the Order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the NCLAT in Company Appeal (At) (Ins) No. 1193 of 2019. The NCALT by the said judgment and order had dismissed the said Appeal of the appellant on the basis of the judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 passed in Company Appeal (At) (Insolvency No. 404 of 2019) (which was the order under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020).
4. This Court while allowing the said Appeals vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 held as under:
“56. Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC. Under Section 53(l)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts on account of workman's dues for a period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date.
57. As observed above, the State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority.
58. We are constrained to hold that the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) and the Adjudicating Authority erred in law in rejecting the application/appeal of the appellant. As observed above, delay in filing a claim cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the claim.
59. The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The Resolution plan approved by the CoC is also set aside. The Resolution Professional may consider a fresh Resolution Plan in the light of the observations made above. However, this judgment and order will not, prevent the Resolution Applicant from submitting a plan in the light of the observations made above, making provisions for the dues of the statutory creditors like the appellant.
60. There shall be no order as to costs.”
5. The following five Review Petitions have been filed by the Review Petitioners being aggrieved by the said common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court:
(i) The Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, who happened to be the Liquidator of Biotor Industries Limited (previously known as Jayant Oils and Derivatives Private Limited) (‘Corporate Debtor’) a registered dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax 2003 Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GVAT Act’) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 19
(1) Review of Judgment – A party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of case.(2) Any passing reference of....
(1) Definition of secured creditor in IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority.(2) If a Resolution Plan is ex-facie not in conformity with law and/or provisions of IBC and/or Rul....
(1) Insolvency Resolution Plan – Once resolution plan is approved by Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that resolution plan as approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC) meets requirements....
The court reaffirmed the status of statutory dues under the Gujarat VAT Act as secured interests, emphasizing the supremacy of judicial interpretations in insolvency proceedings.
Once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, the claims provided in the plan are binding and any claims not included in the plan are extinguished.
A review petition cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law; it must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that was not previously available.
The approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds all creditors, extinguishing claims not included, ensuring no surprise liabilities arise post-approval.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
