Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2023 INSC 963
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1620 OF 2023
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2020
SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL …. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR. …. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1621 OF 2023
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2020
RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARY …. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR. …. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1622 OF 2023
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2020
STATE BANK OF INDIA …. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2023.10.31
16:14:13 IST
Reason:
RAINBOW PAPERS LIMITED & ANR. …. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
1
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 236 OF 2023
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2568 OF 2020
CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN …. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE TAX OFFICER …. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 1623 OF 2023
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2020
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK …. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR. …. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. This batch of five Review Petitions seeks to review the common
Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. Both the
said appeals were preferred by the State Tax Officer-appellant.
2. Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 was preferred by the Appellant-State
Tax Officer against the Respondent-Rainbow Papers Limited (Corporate
Debtor), being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2019
2
passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘NCLAT’), dismissing the Company Appeal (At) (INs)
No. 404 of 2019 filed by the appellant. The said company Appeal was
filed against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority, rejecting the Application being I.A. No. 224/271/272/337 of
2018 and P-01/2019 in CP No. (IB) 88/9/NCLT/AHM/2017 filed by the
appellants, in which it was held that the appellant cannot claim first
charge over the property of the Corporate Debtor, as Section 48 of the
Gujarat Value Added Tax 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GVAT Act’)
cannot prevail over Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
2016 (hereinafter referred to as the IBC).
3. Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 was preferred by the appellant-
State Tax Officer against the Respondents- Mr. Chandra Prakash Jain
and M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd., being aggrieved by the Order dated
23.01.2020 passed by the NCLAT in Company Appeal (At) (Ins) No. 1193
of 2019. The NCALT by the said judgment and order had dismissed the
said Appeal of the appellant on the basis of the judgment and order
dated 19.12.2019 passed in Company Appeal (At) (Insolvency No. 404 of
2019) (which was the order under challenge in Civil Appeal No.1661 of
2020).
4. This Court while allowing the said Appeals vide the impugned order
dated 06.09.2022 held as under:
3
“56. Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or
inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the
IBC. Under Section 53(l)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured
creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act.
are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts
on account of workman's dues for a period of 24 months
preceding the liquidation commencement date.
57. As observed above, the State is a secured creditor under
the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured
creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest
is credited. Such security interest could be created by
operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC
does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority.
58. We are constrained to hold that the Appellate Authority
(NCLAT) and the Adjudicating Authority erred in law in
rejecting the application/appeal of the appellant. As observed
above, delay in filing a claim cannot be the sole ground for
rejecting the claim.
59. The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set
aside. The Resolution plan approved by the CoC is also set
aside. The Resolution Professional may consider a fresh
Resolution Plan in the light of the observations made above.
However, this judgment and order will not, prevent the
Resolution Applicant from submitting a plan in the light of the
observations made above, making provisions for the dues of
the statutory creditors like the appellant.
60. There shall be no order as to costs”.
5. The following five Review Petitions have been filed by the Review
Petitioners being aggrieved by the said common judgment and order
dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court.
(i) The Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal
No. 1661 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner – Sanjay
4
Kumar Agarwal, who happened to be the Liquidator of Biotor
Industries Limited (previously known as Jayant Oils and
Derivatives Private Limited) (‘Corporate Debtor’) a registered
dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax 2003 Act
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘GVAT Act’) and the Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sales Tax
Act’). The Review Petitioner was not a party to the
proceedings of Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, however, has
filed the Review Petition claiming to be an “aggrieved person”
on the ground that the impugned order dated 06.09.2022
passed by this Court would have direct effect on the
proceedings pending between the Review Petitioner and the
Gujarat Sales Tax Authority before the Gujarat High Court in
Special Civil Application No. 23256 of 2019.
(ii) The Review Petition No. 1621 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.
1661 of 2020 has been filed by the Review Petitioner –
Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary, who happened to be the
Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as the RP) of
the Corporate Debtor, “Rainbow Papers Limited” – and was
the respondent in the proceedings before the National
Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCLT’)
in Intervention Application No. P-01 of 2019 in CP No.
5
88/9/NCLT/AHM/2017 and was respondent no. 2 before the
NCLAT in Company Appeal (At) (Ins) No. 404 of 2019).
According to the Review Petitioner, he was not made party in
the Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 filed before this Court and
therefore was aggrieved by the said order.
(iii) The Review Petition (Civil) No. 1622 of 2023 in Civil Appeal
No. 1661 of 2020 has been filed by the Review Petitioner
State Bank of India, on behalf of the Consortium of lenders of
the Biotor Industries Limited, a company under liquidation.
The Review petitioner was not a party to the proceedings of
Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, however, claims to be an
“aggrieved person” as according to the Review Petitioner, the
impugned judgment had an effect over the proceedings
pending between the Review Petitioner and the Sales Tax
authorities, Vadodara in Writ Petition being SCA No. 23256 of
2019 before the Gujarat High Court.
(iv) The Review Petition (Civil) No. 236 of 2023 in Civil Appeal
No. 2568 of 2020 has been filed by the Review Petitioners –
Chandra Prakash Jain and Anr., Resolution Professional of
M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd., and M/s. Mekaster
Engineering Ltd (Corporate Debtor), who were the
respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 filed by the
6
Appellant – State Tax Officer. According to the petitioners,
they are aggrieved by the common impugned order dated
06.09.2022 passed by this Court as the same was passed
without taking into consideration the law laid down by this
Court and the provisions of IBC.
(v) The Review Petition (Civil) No. 1623 of 2023 in Civil Appeal
No. 1661 of 2020 has been filed by the Review Petitioner-
Indian Overseas Bank, which was one of the members of the
Committee of creditors constituted subsequent to the
commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
(CIRP) of the M/s. Rainbow Papers Limited (Corporate
Debtor). The Review Petitioner was not a party to the
proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, however, is
seeking review being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
dated 06.09.2022.
th
6. This Court vide the order dated 13 November, 2022, had allowed
the Applications seeking permission to file Review Petitions and also
allowed the applications seeking Intervention/ Impleadment.
Scope of Review:
7. At the outset, it may be stated that the power to review its
judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of
7
the Constitution of India. Of course, that power is subject to the
provisions of any law made by the Parliament or the Rules made under
Article 145. Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred under
Article 145 of the Constitution of India has framed the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013. The Order XLVII of Part IV thereof deals with the provisions
of Review. Accordingly, in a Civil Proceeding, an application for review is
entertained only on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure and in a Criminal Proceeding on the ground of
an error apparent on the face of record. However, it may be noted that
neither Order XLVII CPC nor Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules limits
the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review.
Even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself to be an
“aggrieved person,” may take recourse to the remedy of review petition.
The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the
1
judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect. In view of the
said legal position, the Review Petitioners who claimed to be the
“aggrieved persons” by the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2022, were
permitted to file Review Petitions and were heard by the Court.
8. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels
for the parties, let us regurgitate the well settled law on the scope of
1 (2019) 18 SCC 586, Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad
& Others
8
review as contemplated in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules read
with Order XLVII of CPC.
9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J. , (as His Lordship then was) “a plea
of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like
asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an
invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and
reversal of result……… A review in the Counsel’s mentation cannot
2
repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.”
10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a
judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing
and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment
pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is
justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling
3
character make it necessary to do so.
4
11. In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others , this
Court made very pivotal observations: -
“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and
has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
2 (1980) 2 SCC 167, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi
3 AIR 1965 SC 845, Sajjan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
4 (1997) 8 SCC 715
9
said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it
must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State
5
Electricity Board and Others , a three Judge Bench of this Court
following Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others
(supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is
limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted
to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been
addressed and decided.
13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal
6
Representatives and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others ,
this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under
Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.
14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-
8346 of 2018 ( Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrated Sales Service
Limited & Another ) , this Court reiterated the law and held that: -
“15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review
cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be
5 (2020) 2 SCC 677
6 (2021) 13 SCC 1
10
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC. 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 opinions.”
15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in
Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others
7
, held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of
co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as 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-evident and has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise
its power of review.
7 (2021) 3 SCC 1
11
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “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 opinions.
(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.
Analysis:
17. Keeping in view the afore-stated legal position, let us examine
whether the Review Petitioners have been able to make out any case
within the ambit of Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, read with Order
XLVII of CPC, for reviewing the impugned judgment.
18. We have heard Mr. Harish N Salve, Mr. Naveen Pahwa, Mr. Dhruv
Mehta, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, and Mr. Sumesh
12
Dhawan, respective learned Senior Counsels and other learned counsels
for the Review Petitioners/ Intervenors, as also Mr. Maninder Singh,
learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Aastha Mehta, learned Counsel for the
Respondents.
19. The learned Senior Counsels and learned Counsels for the Review
Petitioners/ Intervenors placing heavy reliance on the observations made
by a two Judge Bench of this Court in C.A. No. 7976 of 2019 (Paschim
Anchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Raman Ispat Private Limited
th
and Others) , delivered on 17 July, 2023, submitted that the court in the
impugned judgment had failed to consider the waterfall mechanism
contained in Section 53, as also failed to consider other provisions of the
IBC. They have relied upon the observations made by the co-ordinate
Bench in the following paragraph: -
“49. Rainbow Papers (supra) did not notice the ‘waterfall
mechanism’ under Section 53 – the provision had not been
adverted to or extracted in the judgment. Furthermore,
Rainbow Papers (supra) was in the context of a resolution
process and not during liquidation. Section 53, as held
earlier, enacts the waterfall mechanism providing for the
hierarchy or priority of claims of various classes of creditors.
The careful design of Section 53 locates amounts payable to
secured creditors and workmen at the second place, after the
costs and expenses of the liquidator payable during the
liquidation proceedings. However, the dues payable to the
government are placed much below those of secured
creditors and even unsecured and operational creditors. This
design was either not brought to the notice of the court in
Rainbow Papers (supra) or was missed altogether. In any
13
event, the judgment has not taken note of the provisions of
the IBC which treat the dues payable to secured creditors at
a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State
Government.”
20. Taking recourse to the said observations made by the co-ordinate
bench, the learned Counsels for the Review Petitioners have urged to
review the impugned judgment. The said submission of the learned
Counsels for the review petitioners deserves to be outrightly rejected for
the simple reason that any passing reference of the impugned judgment
made by the Bench of the equal strength could not be a ground for
review. It is well settled proposition of law that a co-ordinate Bench
cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by
another co-ordinate Bench of the same strength. If a Bench does not
accept as correct the decision on a question of law of another Bench of
equal strength, the only proper course to adopt would be to refer the
matter to the larger Bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise the law
would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting
decisions.
8
21. In JaiSri Sahu vs. Rajdewan Dubey and Others , a Bench of four
Judges have made very pertinent observations in this regard: -
“11. Law will be bereft of all its utility if it should be thrown into
a state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions, and it
8 AIR 1962 SC 83
14
is therefore desirable that in case of difference of opinion, the
question should be authoritatively settled.”
22. In Mamleshwar Prasad and Another vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead)
9
Through L.Rs. , it was observed that: -
“7. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of
courts – all flowering from the same principle – converge to
the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind
like cases. We do not intend to detract from the rule that, in
exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or
oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision
or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and
result reached, it may not have the sway of binding
precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive
omission.”
23. A precise observations made by a three Judge Bench in Sant Lal
Gupta and Others vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society
10
Limited and Others , are worth noting –
“17. A coordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion
exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate Bench
of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the
reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty
in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which
enunciate the rules of law form the foundation of the
administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has
always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate Bench
must be followed. (Vide Tribhovandas Purshottamdas
Thakkar vs. Ratilal Motilal Patel, Sub-Committee of Judicial
Accountability vs. Union of India, and State of Tripura vs.
Tripura Bar Association.)”
9 (1975) 2 SCC 232
10 (2010) 13 SCC 336
15
24. Apart from the well-settled legal position that a co-ordinate Bench
cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate
Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a
co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review, the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the
Review Petitioners that the court in the impugned decision had failed to
consider the waterfall mechanism as contained in Section 53 and failed
to consider other provisions of IBC, are factually incorrect. As evident
from the bare reading of the impugned judgment, the Court had
considered not only the Waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of IBC
but also the other provisions of the IBC for deciding the priority for the
purpose of distributing the proceeds from the sale as liquidation assets.
25. To be precise, the Court in the impugned judgment had
categorically reproduced Section 53 in Paragraph 20, other provisions of
IBC along with the Regulations of 2016 in Paragraph 21, and the
subsequent amendments in the Regulations of 2018, with regard to the
submission of claims to be made by the creditors in Paragraphs 22 & 23
of the judgment. The Court in the impugned judgment has also
considered the earlier decisions of this Court in case of Ghanashyam
Mishra and Sons Private Limited through the authorized signatory
vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the
16
11
Director and Others in Paragraph 42. The decision in case of Ebix
Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp
12
Solutions Limited and Another in Paragraph 47, and thereafter
observed as under: -
“48. A resolution plan which does not meet the requirements
of SubSection (2) of Section 30 of the IBC, would be invalid
and not binding on the Central Government, any State
Government, any statutory or other authority, any financial
creditor, or other creditor to whom a debt in respect of dues
arising under any law for the time being in force is owed.
Such a resolution plan would not bind the State when there
are outstanding statutory dues of a Corporate Debtor.
49. Section 31(1) of the IBC which empowers the
Adjudicating Authority to approve a Resolution Plan uses the
expression "it shall by order approve the resolution plan
which shall be binding ... " subject to the condition that the
Resolution Plan meets the requirements of subsection (2) of
Section 30. If a Resolution Plan meets the requirements, the
Adjudicating Authority is mandatorily required to approve the
Resolution Plan. On the other hand, Sub-section (2) of
Section 31, which enables the Adjudicating Authority to reject
a Resolution Plan which does not conform to the
requirements referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 31,
uses the expression "may".
50. Ordinarily, the use of the word "shall" connotes a
mandate/binding direction, while use of the expression "may"
connotes discretion. If statute says, a person may do a thing,
he may also not do that thing. Even if Section 31(2) is
construed to confer discretionary power on the Adjudicating
Authority to reject a Resolution Plan, it has to be kept in mind
that discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily,
whimsically or without proper application of mind to the facts
11 (2021) 9 SCC 657
12 (2022) 2 SCC 401
17
and circumstances which require discretion to be exercised
one way or the other.”
26. After considering the Waterfall mechanism as contemplated in
Section 53 and other provisions of IBC for the purpose of deciding as to
whether Section 53 IBC would override Section 48 of the GVAT Act, it
was finally concluded in the impugned order as under: -
“55. In our considered view, the NCLAT clearly erred in its
observation that Section 53 of the IBC over-rides Section 48
of the GVAT Act. Section 53 of the IBC begins with a non-
obstante clause which reads: - "Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in any law enacted by the Parliament
or any State Legislature for the time being in force, the
proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets shall be
distributed in the following order of priority. ..........
56. Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or
inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the
IBC. Under Section 53(l)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured
creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act
are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts
on account of workman's dues for a period of 24 months
preceding the liquidation commencement date.
57. As observed above, the State is a secured creditor under
the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured
creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest
is credited. Such security interest could be created by
operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC
does not exclude any Government or Governmental
Authority.”
27. In view of the above stated position, we are of the opinion that the
well-considered judgment sought to be reviewed does not fall within the
scope and ambit of Review. The learned Counsels for the Review
18
Petitioners have failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the
face of record in the impugned judgment, and have failed to bring the
case within the parameters laid down by this Court in various decision for
reviewing the impugned judgment. Since we are not inclined to entertain
these Review Petitions, we do not propose to deal with the other
submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties on merits.
28. In that view of the matter, all the Review Petitions are dismissed.
…………………………J.
[A.S. BOPANNA]
…………………………J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
NEW DELHI;
st
OCTOBER, 31 2023
19