Failure To Cite Judgment Does Not Render Original Judgement Flawed: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere failure to cite a judgement does not, in and of itself, render the original judgement flawed.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has observed that the review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgement; rather, it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgement does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.

The main question raised by M/S Tata Steel Ltd. (Revisionist) was "whether, in view of the definition of 'purchase price' under Section 2(gg) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, the applicant having paid the amount of Rs. 5,56,81,000 also for the purchase of plant and machinery, apparatus, and equipment, the same ought to have been included in the 'Fixed Capital Investment'.

The revisionist contended that the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the said amount merely on the ground that the amount has been allowed as MODVAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA). Other questions were also raised with regard to MODVAT allowed by the excise department.

The court noted that unlike the fabled sword of Damocles, review jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be hung precariously above the heads of litigants, threatening the delicate balance of legal certainty. Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, stands as a sentinel—a guardian of the gates, permitting entry only to those deemed worthy by the stringent criteria it lays forth. It serves as a bulwark against the tide of caprice and whim.

“What is also surprising to me is that although the ground taken by the respondent to withdraw their special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was liberty to approach this Court since, as per them, the main question of law was not decided by this Court in its judgement on February 15, 2010, the said ground does not find any mention in the instant review application. The failure to articulate consistent grounds for seeking review calls into question the bona fides of the respondent's application. One would expect that if a significant aspect of the case was left unaddressed in a prior judgement, as alleged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this would be foremost among the reasons cited for seeking review. This inconsistent approach adopted by the respondent could not be explained by them before this Court,” the court said.

The court while dismissing the review application, opined that frivolous motions for review would ignite the 'gambling' element in litigation with the finality of judgments even by the highest court, being left in suspense. If every vanquished party has a fling at 'review' lucky dip and if, perchance, notice were issued in some cases to the opponent the latter-and, of course, the former, -would be put to great expense and anxiety. The very solemnity of finality, so crucial to judicial justice, would be frustrated if such a game were to become popular.

Counsel For Petitioner: Devashish Bharuka

Counsel For Respondent: Bipin Kumar Pandey

Case Title: M/S Tata Steel Ltd. versus Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

Case No.: Civil Misc. Review Application No.301926 Of 2010 In Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. – 225 Of 2002

Click Here To Read The Order