MP HC Rejects Aroprint’s Review Bid In Insurance Dispute, Says Alleged Factual Errors Don’t Warrant Reopening Appeal Order

Aroprint Global Private Limited sought review of the High Court’s order dated 14 October 2026 in Writ Appeal No. 3530 of 2026.

It alleged errors in the order’s account of its challenge to an investigator’s report, the interpretation of an earlier judgment, and the treatment of procedural matters, including pending applications and the production of a Final Joint Survey Report.

The petitioner also sought reconsideration of observations it said could affect its claim for interest.

The review was heard by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore.

The Court applied the review principles set out in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320.

Under paragraph 20.2 of that decision, review is not an appeal in disguise; it requires a manifest material error that undermines the order’s soundness or causes a miscarriage of justice.

Repetition of arguments, disputes requiring reassessment of facts or evidence, and the mere possibility of another view do not ordinarily justify review.

The Court considered the petitioner’s grounds to be, in substance, challenges to the reasoning and factual observations in the appellate order, rather than proof of a patent error.

It treated the alleged factual errors as matters not remediable through review.

It also found no basis to review the order because it had been passed while the petitioner’s applications remained pending: the impugned order issued no directions adversely affecting either party and merely called on the concerned authority to decide in accordance with law.

Applying Kamlesh Verma, the Court concluded that the application fell within the categories of review grounds that do not establish a manifest error.

dismissed the review petition