The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to review its judgment, stating that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment on another's decision. The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Bela M. Trivedi was hearing a Review Petition and declined to reconsider its ruling, asserting that one Bench cannot critique another's decision.
In the present case, a batch of five Review Petitions sought to review a common Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in two Civil Appeals (No. 1661 of 2020 and No. 2568 of 2020) filed by the State Tax Officer-appellant.
Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 was filed by the State Tax Officer against Rainbow Papers Limited (Corporate Debtor) due to a dispute over the priority of claims under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the Company Appeal filed by the appellant. The Supreme Court, in its impugned order, allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders and the Resolution Plan.
Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 was filed by the State Tax Officer against Mr. Chandra Prakash Jain and M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd. The NCLAT had dismissed this appeal based on its judgment in the first Civil Appeal. The Supreme Court's impugned order also set aside this appeal and the Resolution Plan.
The main contention in the Review Petitions was that the Supreme Court failed to consider the "waterfall mechanism" under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and other relevant provisions of the Code.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petitions, stating that the co-ordinate Bench could not comment on a judgment of another co-ordinate Bench.
The Apex Court also concluded that the impugned judgment had already considered the relevant provisions and the "waterfall mechanism." Therefore, the Review Petitions did not fall within the scope of review, as there was no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Yorumlar