Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mormugao Port Authority & Anr. __________________________________________________ 16 CAREV 5 of 2023 August 24, 2026 Esha IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 5 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2021 BAGADIYA BROTHERS PVT. LTD. … APPLICANT ~ VERSUS ~ MORMUGAO PORT AUTHORITY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MORMUGAO PORT TRUST) AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS APPEARANCES: for the Applicant Senior Advocate Mr. S.G. Desai with Ms. Shalaka Shelke and Ms. Riddhi Ajgaonkar for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Yogesh V. Nadkarni with Mr. Kunal Nadkarni CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED : 24th AUGUST 2026 ORAL ORDER: (per Valmiki Menezes, J.) 1. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present Civil Review Application has been raised by Respondent No. 1. 2026:BHC-GOA:1725-DB Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mormugao Port Authority & Anr. __________________________________________________ 16 CAREV 5 of 2023 August 24, 2026 2. Respondent No. 1 contends that the judgment of this Court dated 25.01.2023 passed in Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2021 has been challenged by both parties i.e. the Review Petitioner herein has filed SLP No. 21457-21458/2023 and Respondent No. 2 herein has filed SLP No. 3383-3384/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In both these SLPs, leave has been granted by the Supreme Court to appeal on 03.02.2026. The order recording so, has been placed before us. 3. In Khoday Distilleries Limited & Others Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, (2019) 4 SCC 376 and more particularly in paragraph 26 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the question whether this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a Review Petition against an order in respect of which the SLP before the Supreme Court has been granted leave to appeal. The observations on this count are quoted below as follows:- 26.1. The conclusions rendered by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kunhayammed and summed up in paragraph 44 are affirmed and reiterated. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mormugao Port Authority & Anr. __________________________________________________ 16 CAREV 5 of 2023 August 24, 2026 26.2. We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: “(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mormugao Port Authority & Anr. __________________________________________________ 16 CAREV 5 of 2023 August 24, 2026 (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub- rule (1) of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.” 26.3. Once we hold that law laid down in Kunhayammed is to be followed, it will not make any difference whether the review petition was filed before the filing of special leave petition or was filed after the dismissal of special leave petition. Such a situation is covered in para 37 of Kunhayammed case. 4. Considering what is held in Khoday Distilleries Limited (supra), which in turn refers to Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and having regard to the fact that, in the present case, leave to appeal has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the instance of the Review Petitioner, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the present Review Petition in view of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 5. Consequently, the present Review Petition is rejected solely on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mormugao Port Authority & Anr. __________________________________________________ 16 CAREV 5 of 2023 August 24, 2026 6. The Review Petition stands disposed of. [ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [ VALMIKI MENEZES, J. ] Signed by: VAIGANKAR ESHA SAINATH Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 27/08/2026 14:14:21