1 RP No. 82/2023 In WP(C) No. 2803/2023 S. No. 3 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP No. 82/2023 In WP(C) No. 2803/2023 Abdul Majid Khan …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Petitioner present in person Vs. Union of India and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE O R D E R 19.08.2025 1. The petitioner seeks review of the Order dated 3rd November 2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2803/2023, “titled Abdul Majid Khan v. Union of India and Ors.”, vide which writ petition has been dismissed. 2. In the writ petition (WP(C) No. 2803/2023), the petitioner had assailed Notice of Striking-off and Dissolution dated 07.08.2017, issued by Registrar of Companies, Jammu and Kashmir, under Subsection (5) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, vide which the name of petitioner’s Company (at S. No. 392 of the List) had been struck off from the Register of Companies and dissolved. 3. This Court while considering the writ petition observed that the petitioner had earlier in OWP no.2334/2018 challenged the Public Notice dated 12.06.2017, issued by the Registrar of Companies under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, whereby he was informed of the intention to remove the name of the Company from the Register of the Companies. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2022 and it was held that once the impugned notice under Section 248(1) and (4) of the Companies Act had culminated into passing of the order under Section 248(1) and (4) the writ petition had 2 RP No. 82/2023 In WP(C) No. 2803/2023 been rendered infructuous. However, it was left open for the petitioner to challenge the order of striking-off his Company’s name passed under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, by filing an appeal before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short “NCLT) as is provided in terms of Section 252 of the Companies Act. 4. The petitioner filed Letter Patent Appeal No. 03/2023 against the Order dated 24.11.2022, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2023, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the striking- off order in an appeal before the NCLT. Even review petition filed against the LPA order had also been dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2023. 5. The writ petition, WP(C) no.2803/2023, of the petitioner was dismissed by holding that the order impugned assailed by the petitioner had been passed under sub-section (5) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, and an appeal against the said order would lie to the Tribunal, therefore, writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate statutory remedy available to him under Section 252 of the Companies Act. 6. Petitioner seeks review of the order dated 03.11.2023 precisely on the ground that petitioner’s company has been struck-off on the basis of non-existent facts, contrary to the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that the petitioner has filed the annual returns of more than 8 years in the office of Registrar of the Companies along with other essential documents; that the petitioner’s company has filed the civil suits bearing Nos. 389/1989 and 4 of 1990, which are pending adjudication before the Supreme Court and the presence of these two cases clearly show that the petitioner’s company is still in operation. The right to livelihood is a fundamental right which has been violated by the respondents by their notice dated 17.05.2017. Petitioner is legally entitled to get the relief by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been considered and adjudicated in a similar writ petition. Thus, the petitioner seeks that review filed under Article 215 may be treated as the recall petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of any writ of certiorari for quashment of the struck-off 3 RP No. 82/2023 In WP(C) No. 2803/2023 petitioner’s company vide impugned order dated 07.08.2017 to the extent of S.No. 392, i.e. Jhelum Exporters Private Limited. 7. Review petition in terms of High Court Rules is to be filed under Rule 65 of J&K High Court Rules 1999, which reads as under:- “65. Application for review of judgement;- The Court may review its judgement or order but no application for review shall be entertained except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code”. 8. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC provides requirements under which a petition for review of a judgement/order is to be entertained. The review of a judgement/order is only permissible when new and important matters or evidence are discovered, which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made or some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is discovered or found. 9. The only ground on which the petitioner seeks review of the order is that this Court has not considered the law laid down in AIR 2006 SC 75 titled “Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Others”, (2009) 2 SCC 703 titled “Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal and Others”, AIR 2003 SC 2120 titled “Harbanslal Sahnia and Another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others”. 10. The judgement passed in the case of Asit Kumar Kar (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as in the said case the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. In the said case, policy for granting additional licences for foreign liquor was under challenge before the High Court of Calcutta, in which an interim order had been passed staying grant of licenses. A contempt petition was filed before the High Court of Calcutta alleging that licences were issued in violation of stay order. Contempt petition was dismissed, which was challenged in SLP, in which apology tendered was accepted, but in paragraph 40 of the judgement, cancellation of licences was directed and their business was directed to be stopped. The Supreme Court held that the said direction contained in paragraph 40 of the judgement was passed without hearing the persons whose licences were ordered to be cancelled and even impleadment applications of such 4 RP No. 82/2023 In WP(C) No. 2803/2023 persons were rejected. It is in this backdrop, that the Supreme Court held that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. The Supreme Court has made observations about distinction between review petition and recall petition. Revision petition is to be considered on merit where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Recall petition is simply for recalling of an order which is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. The said case is dissimilar to the facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, is not applicable to the case in hand as in the present case, the review petitioner was heard while passing the order. 11. The judgement in Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others (supra) is not even remotely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the present case, it is not the case of petitioner that he had not earlier approached this Court on same subject matter. He had earlier filed a writ petition, OWP no.2334/2018, which was dismissed by the Writ Court and against that order he filed LPA, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench granting petitioner liberty to file appeal under Section 252 of the Companies Act before National Company Law Tribunal. Instead of availing the remedy as was available and as was directed to be availed by the Division Bench, petitioner again approached this Court with WP(C) no.2803/2023 with respect to the same subject matter. This, in fact, tantamount to evading and challenging the orders of the Division Bench that too in a writ petition. 12. The third judgement relied upon by the petitioner passed in the case of Rajender Singh (supra) is also not applicable to the present case. There is no error apparent on the face of record. 13. It is necessary to mention that on 17.05.2017 a notice under Sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, was served upon petitioner and others to show cause and submit representation against the proposed action of removing the name of company of petitioner from the Register of Companies. 5 RP No. 82/2023 In WP(C) No. 2803/2023 14. On 12.06.2017, another Notice under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, was issued. The said notice was challenged by petitioner in the year 2018 in OWP No.2334/2018. 15. The petitioner has not mentioned even a word about OWP no.2334/2018 in WP(C) no.2803/2023. Even petitioner has not uttered a single word that earlier writ petition dismissed was challenged in LPA and that the said LPA had also been dismissed prior to filing of WP(C) no.2803/2023. These important facts have been concealed by petitioner in his writ petition, although these facts could have been highlighted in the judgement under review, yet this Court taking lenient view granted liberty to petitioner to avail remedy of appeal under the Act by filing an appeal as was also directed by the Division Bench. Thus, there is no ground much less material or cogent one to review the judgement under review. 16. This apart, the petitioner under the guise of this review petition is seeking re-hearing of the matter which is impermissible and in fact for which he has to approach the appellate court. 17. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this petition seeking review of order dated 3rd November 2023, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE SRINAGAR 19.08.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 17.10.2025 00.04