Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed five review petitions against its 6 September 2022 Rainbow Papers judgment. Review could not serve as a rehearing, and later observations by a coordinate Bench supplied no review ground by themselves. The assertion that the earlier judgment overlooked Section 53 and other IBC provisions was factually incorrect. No apparent error was established; other merits submissions were not examined.
Issues
- Whether the petitions established an apparent error or other permissible ground for review.
- Whether later coordinate-Bench observations justified reopening the earlier judgment.
Provisions considered
- Article 137, Constitution of IndiaThe constitutional review power was exercised within the limits prescribed by the applicable review rules. (¶ 7–17)
- Order XLVII, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Civil review was confined to the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; a person aggrieved could seek review even if not a party to the original proceedings. (¶ 7–17)
- Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Review could not become an appeal in disguise or reopen matters merely for fresh argument; no self-evident error was shown. (¶¶ 8–17, 27–28)
- Section 53, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016The Court checked the alleged omission and found that the earlier judgment had expressly reproduced and considered the waterfall provision with other relevant IBC provisions. (¶ 24–26)
Held
- Review is available to an aggrieved person, including an appropriately situated non-party, but remains subject to the same restricted substantive grounds. Permission to file did not establish an entitlement to review on merits. (¶ 6–7)
- An apparent error must be self-evident rather than discovered through extended reasoning on a debatable point. Review cannot be used to reargue decided issues or obtain a fresh decision as an appeal in disguise. (¶ 9–16)
- A later decision or change in law is not by itself a review ground. The passing observations relied on from the coordinate Bench therefore did not justify reopening the earlier judgment. (¶¶ 15–16, 19–24)
- A coordinate Bench disagreeing with another Bench of equal strength on a legal question should refer the issue for authoritative determination by a larger Bench, preserving consistency and certainty. (¶ 20–23)
- The earlier judgment had considered Section 53, other IBC provisions and the cited precedents; the alleged omission was factually incorrect. No apparent error was demonstrated, and the remaining merits submissions were left unexamined. (¶ 24–27)
Result
All five review petitions dismissed; the judgment of 6 September 2022 remained undisturbed. Other merits submissions not examined.