1 MCA 589.25.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5526 OF 2023 [D] [Food Corporation of India .vs. Vishmeet Transport and one] MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.590 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5527 OF 2023 [D] [Food Corporation of India .vs. Rajkumar Gulati and one] MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5409 OF 2023 [D] [Food Corporation of India .vs. Sublime Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. and one] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant. Shri R.R. Dawada, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.1. Shri H.V. Thakur, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2. …………….. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. Reserved on : 12.12.2025. Pronounced on : 13.01.2026. 1. By the judgment dated 13.3.2025, this court has finally decided the matter, wherein the present applicant was directed along with present non-applicant no.2 to release the amount in favour of present non-applicant no.1 as claimed in the prayer clause with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 2. While reaching to this conclusion, this court has recorded specific finding that there was no condition that payment of non-applicant No.1 shall be released against any risk and costs of earlier successful bidder, so also in the agreement also, there was no such clause. Hence, in any case, non-releasing of payment of non-applicant no.1 is illegal in the matter. 2 MCA 589.25.docx 3. The present applicant, who was original non- applicant no.2, filed the present application for review of order dated 13.3.2025 on the ground that present applicant is not liable to pay the amount as directed by this court for the reason that the contract was awarded by present non- applicant no.2, there was no consultation by present non- applicant no.2 with applicant while awarding the contract to the present non-applicant no.1. Lastly the amount which was agreed in case of previous contractor was paid time to time by the present applicant as per the demand of non- applicant no.2. However, as the tender floated as well as awarded by the present non-applicant no.2 and sanctioned in favour of non-applicant no.1, the applicant is not responsible for the payment as directed by this court in the matter. 4. After hearing the present applicant, it is seen that his submission was considered by this court and after recording the submission of the parties, reached to this final conclusion that applicant as well as non-applicant no.2 are responsible to release the amount in favour of non- applicant no.1. 5. In this regard, it will be necessary to state that the powers of review can be exercised by this court only in exceptional cases. The review proceedings are not by way of appeal and, therefore, what can be considered in appeal cannot be considered in review application. The review is not for the purpose to correct the findings recorded by this court. As per settled position of law for an erroneous 3 MCA 589.25.docx decision rendered by the court, it is not permissible under the powers of review to reconsider the same. The powers of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. 6. In view of this settled principles of law, we are of the opinion that the grounds raised by the present applicant which are in the nature of seeking rehearing of the matter and to substitute the view recorded by this court is not permissible in the matter. 7. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this application cannot be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the matter. Hence, same stands rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande