04 August 2021 | Priyanka Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.| Review Petition (L) 5868 of 2021 | GS Patel J | 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1595

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition to review its order under Section 9 ACA. In that order, GS Patel J had determined, prima facie, that the petitioners were borrowers from Tata and, and not having repaid the loan, were in contractual default. Accordingly, he granted an injunction and directed asset disclosure.

In appeal, the division bench found that the several submissions made before it was not advanced before Patel J though they were contained in the written submissions filed before the hearing. Accordingly, it granted liberty to the petitioner to seek a review.

Patel J came down heavily on the petitioners and dismissed the review petition with costs of INR 5 lakhs. He found the petitioner’s conduct deplorable and frivolous, vexatious, and unforgivable waste of judicial time.

According to the court, the power of substantive review—as opposed to procedural or purely procedural review—must be conferred by law and is narrowly constrained by the law that grants it. Accordingly, it held that grounds taken in this case did not fall under the narrow limits of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by which the power of review was conferred on the civil courts.

Patel J examined in detail the circumstances in which the written submissions had been filed and emphasised that the submissions were not considered because nobody argued them or even pointed that they had been filed. He said that a litigant has a right to be heard, but no party has a right to change the lawyers and then having the new lawyers attempt to argue points not raised, given up, or rejected.

[Ed. It was not a question either before the division bench or before Patel J if the review provisions of CPC applied to the ACA].

Access the court's decision here.