RA-CR-48-2025 v. Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Binat Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Binat Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. for the applicant None for the respondent. None for the respondent. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI CM-7604-CII- -2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in the review application. re-filing the review application. reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and For the delay of 12 days in preferring the review application is condoned. delay of 12 days in preferring the review application is condoned. delay of 12 days in preferring the review application is condoned. 2025 RA-CR-48-2025 This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated January 09, 2025. January 09, 2025.

ew applicant submits that based on Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that based on Learned counsel for the revi Clause 24 of the lause 24 of the lease deed, the respondents s should have imposed a fine instead of cancelling the lease deed of the appellant/review applicant. instead of cancelling the lease deed of the appellant/review applicant. instead of cancelling the lease deed of the appellant/review applicant.

This Court finds that the said argument was This Court find s that the said argument was raised at the time of hearing of the appeal and the same has been recorded in paragraph 6 of the hearing of the appeal and the same has been recorded in paragraph 6 of the hearing of the appeal and the same has been recorded in paragraph 6 of the judgment. After recording the same and then discussing Clause 7 of the lease judgment. After recording the same and then discussing judgment. After recording the same and then discussing VANDANA 2026.03.07 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-48-2025 CM-7604-CII-2025 in FAO-6017-2024 deed, this Court had found that there was no infirmity in the award passed by the learned Arbitrator on March 21, 2018 and the judgment passed by the Court dealing with the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Act’) on July 24,

To the mind of this Court, a review is maintainable only upon the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed. Furthermore, review is also maintainable in a case where on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason the order passed against the applicant needs to be reviewed. “Sufficient reason” has been elucidated in various pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicant has not been able to bring before this Court any new or important fact that was not within his knowledge at the time of passing of the judgment under review. Furthermore, no error apparent on the face of the order could also be brought to the notice of this Court. The Apex Court has held that the scope of review of an order is limited. Reference may be made to the Apex Court’s judgment in RA-LP-61-2024 in LPA-670-2024 “Dhirender Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others” which are reproduced as under: “xxx The principles as regards the scope and extent of review jurisdiction of the court, have been summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320 and were reiterated by this Court as well, in the case of Columbia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Haryana and others RA-CW-357 of 2015.

1. Any person considering himself aggrieved VANDANA 2026.03.07 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-48-2025 CM-7604-CII-2025 in FAO-6017-2024 a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is from which no appeal has been allowed, but preferred, b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or c) By a decision on reference from a Court of small causes, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. for a review of

2. A party who is not appealing from a decree or judgment order may apply notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when being respondent he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review.” The expression “any other sufficient reason” has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds. An erroneous decision/ order cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (emphasis supplied) xxx”

In the present case the learned counsel appearing for review applicant has sought to reargue the appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. Such a course of action is impermissible in law. In the circumstances, this Court finds the present review application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE February 27, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : VANDANA 2026.03.07 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Yes/No Yes/No