Review Petitions Filed by Changing Counsel to Retract Recorded Settlements Constitute an Abuse of Judicial Process

The review petitioners (JSBCCL) sought to review a court order dated 26.02.2026, which disposed of a writ petition following an amicable settlement between the parties.

The original dispute involved claims for price variation, GST refunds, and labour charges.

Per court directions, the parties met on 19.02.2026, signed minutes on 21.02.2026 agreeing to settle the price variation claim, but left the GST refund issue undecided.

On the date of the original order, the petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit sworn by their Executive Engineer, confirming the consensus reached.

The court subsequently directed the petitioners to pay the agreed price variation amounts by 25.03.2026.

The petitioners then engaged new counsel and filed this review petition, alleging that the previous advocate lacked instructions to commit to a payment deadline and that the settlement should be interpreted as a final rejection of the GST and labour charge claims.

1. Whether a review petition is maintainable when filed through a change of counsel for the purpose of disowning statements made by previous counsel that are corroborated by the record.

2. Whether the petitioners established any error apparent on the face of the record regarding the scope of the settlement agreement.

The court primarily applied the principle established in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar [(1997) 9 SCC 736], which held that changing advocates to file a review petition to re-argue merits or disown statements is an abuse of the judicial process.

It further relied on Om Prakash v. Suresh Kumar [(2020) 13 SCC 188], which deprecated the conduct of litigants who change advocates to assert that previous counsel acted without instructions.

The court also referenced Lavanya C v. Vittal Gurudas Pai [2025 SCC OnLine SC 499] regarding the binding nature of legal counsel’s statements.

The court characterized the review petition as a "dishonest attempt" to wriggle out of a recorded settlement.

It noted that the settlement was not merely based on oral statements by counsel, but was reinforced by a supplementary affidavit sworn by the petitioners' own officer, which confirmed the consensus reached in the minutes of the meeting.

The court found that the minutes explicitly showed that while price variation was settled, the GST refund was merely deferred, not waived or rejected by the respondent.

The court further observed that the petitioners’ attempt to make their previous counsel a "scapegoat" was inconsistent with the fact that the counsel was present at the settlement meeting and acted in accordance with the signed minutes.

The court concluded that the petition was an attempt to avoid the consequences of a pending contempt proceeding rather than a correction of a legal error.

The court imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000, specifically directing that the amount be borne personally by the Managing Director and the Executive Engineer in equal measure, rather than from public funds.

The costs are to be paid to the Jharkhand High Court Advocates’ Clerk Association within two weeks.