Madras High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Industrial Investment Dispute — Grounds for Appeal Cannot Be Grounds for Review. Review of order dated 20.06.2022 in W.P.No.28096 of 2014 dismissed as no error apparent on face of record.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 41
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present Review Application was filed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd and its Branch Manager seeking review of an order dated 20.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.28096 of 2014. The review applicants contended that interest for the Covid-19 period had been waived. The Court, after considering the case on merits, found that the ground raised by the review applicants did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that grounds for appeal cannot be grounds for review. Consequently, the review application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Grounds for appeal cannot be grounds for review - The review applicants sought review of an order dated 20.06.2022, contending that interest for the Covid-19 period had been waived. The Court held that such a ground cannot be considered an error apparent on the face of record and that grounds for appeal cannot be grounds for review. The review application was dismissed. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the review applicants' contention regarding waiver of interest for Covid-19 period constitutes an error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 20.06.2022.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The review application stands dismissed. No costs.

Law Points

  • Review jurisdiction
  • Error apparent on face of record
  • Grounds for appeal vs review
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (06) 176

REV.APLW No.159 of 2022 AND W.M.P.No.7706 OF 2023

2026-06-19

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, N.MALA

Mr.I.Sathish for Applicants, Mr.K.S.Arumugam for R2, Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan for R3

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional office, No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35 and The Branch Manager, Thiruvallur Branch, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpn Ltd, 86, C 7 D 2nd Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-58

A.Chockalingam, M.Jayaraman, M/s.Acl Cements (p) Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director, M.Rajkumar, No.243/59, Thandalamcherry Village, K.S.Road, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District-601 201

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review application seeking review of an order passed in a writ petition.

Remedy Sought

Review applicants sought to set aside the order dated 20.06.2022 made in W.P.No. 5988 of 2017 (though the order under review is mentioned as W.P.No.28096 of 2014 in the body).

Filing Reason

The review applicants contended that interest for Covid-19 period had been waived.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 20.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.28096 of 2014 (or W.P.No.5988 of 2017 as per prayer) was the subject of review.

Issues

Whether the ground raised by review applicants constitutes an error apparent on the face of record warranting review.

Submissions/Arguments

Learned counsel for the Review Applicants contended that interest for Covid-19 period has been waived.

Ratio Decidendi

Grounds for appeal cannot be grounds for review. A ground that does not constitute an error apparent on the face of record does not warrant interference in review jurisdiction.

Judgment Excerpts

Ground for appeal cannot be a ground to review the order. Thus, the said ground raised by Review Applicants cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference by this Court.

Procedural History

The review application was filed seeking review of an order dated 20.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.28096 of 2014 (prayer mentions W.P.No.5988 of 2017). The Court heard the counsel and dismissed the review.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Considers Civil Revision on Willful Default in Rent under Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. Tenant Challenges Concurrent Eviction Orders, Arguing Joint Family Tenancy and Non-Willful Def...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Industrial Investment Dispute — Grounds for Appeal Cannot Be Grounds for Review. Review of order dated 20.06.2022 in W.P.No.28096 of 2014 dismissed as no error apparent on face of record.