RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M) 101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT BRINDCO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. for the review applicants/respondents. Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the non SANJEEV PRAKASH 1. Matter comes up on application No. preponement of the review petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Review Petition No. 3. Heard learned counsel for the State. 10.01.2025 has failed to take notice of the fact that even against the company, case was registered. 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BRINDCO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the review applicants/respondents. Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the non-applicant/petitioner. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Matter comes up on application No. preponement of the review petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Review Petition No. RA-CW-125-2025 is taken on board today itself. Heard learned counsel for the State. He 10.01.2025 passed by this Court deserves to be reviewed, as this Court has failed to take notice of the fact that even against the company, case was registered. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-4194-CWP-2025 in/and RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab (through VC) A.G., Punjab for the review applicants/respondents. Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate SHARMA, J.(Oral) Matter comes up on application No.CM-4194-CWP-2025 seeking For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Review is taken on board today itself. He submits that the order dated passed by this Court deserves to be reviewed, as this Court has failed to take notice of the fact that even against the company, case in/and (O&M) 20.03.2025 Petitioner s seeking For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Review dated passed by this Court deserves to be reviewed, as this Court has failed to take notice of the fact that even against the company, case MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M) 4. For the said purpose, he h an Enforcement Case Information Report the company has been mentioned by the authorities. 5. We find that the review 6. From the find that mentioning of M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. is through the Director. The said document was neither part of the record of the writ petition, nor of the reply. 7. The aforesaid facts, in our op at by us. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. the review Constitution Bench in Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself a ground for review. mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. detected 2025 (O&M) For the said purpose, he has handed over a report which is essentially Enforcement Case Information Report the company has been mentioned by the authorities. We find that the review petition is wholly misconceived. From the perusal of the ECIR placed on record as Annexure R find that mentioning of M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. is through the Director. The said document was neither part of the record of the writ petition, nor of the reply. The aforesaid facts, in our opinion, do not change the reasoning arrived at by us. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. ; 2024(2) SCC 362 review application/petition, held has under: “15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself a ground for review. 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the 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. (iii) An error which is not self detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an as handed over a report which is essentially Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) wherein the name of the company has been mentioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is wholly misconceived. perusal of the ECIR placed on record as Annexure R-5/1, we find that mentioning of M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. is through the Director. The said document was neither part of the record of the writ inion, do not change the reasoning arrived Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. 2024(2) SCC 362, on the scope of filing held has under:- pertinent to note that recently the Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. ; (2021) 3 SCC 1, held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co- ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as stated decisions is that: (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an as handed over a report which is essentially wherein the name of Enforcement Directorate (ED) 5/1, we find that mentioning of M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. is through the Director. The said document was neither part of the record of the writ inion, do not change the reasoning arrived Vs. filing MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-125-2025 (O&M) error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decisi "reheard and corrected." be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have alread error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long points where there may conceivably be two opinion judgment of a co regarded as a ground for review 9. Therefore, no case for review is made out. Neither there is any error of fact, nor any error of law in 10. Review petition is accordingly 11. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 20.03.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decisi "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinion (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review” Therefore, no case for review is made out. Neither there is any error of or any error of law in passing of the order Review petition is accordingly dismissed All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have y been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be Therefore, no case for review is made out. Neither there is any error of passing of the order in the writ petition. dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Therefore, no case for review is made out. Neither there is any error of MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document