Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 484 (HP)

IFCI Limited v. Him Ispat Ltd.

2020-08-13

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This review petition has been filed against judgment dated 06.03.2020, by stating therein that petitioners reasonably found and believed that this Court while dealing with Company Application No.7 of 2018 has not interpreted the relevant provisions of law contained in Section 529A read with Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in given context of the matter and further that observations made by the Court in Paras 30 to 34 of the impugned judgment are a matter of concern as far as rights of the petitioners under Section 529A of the Act are concerned. Further that observations made in para 30 of the impugned judgment that no other property has been claimed under mortgage, appears totally contrary to the factual position otherwise reflected in Company Application No.7 of 2018. It is further averred that discussion centering around the provisions of law contained in Section 529A of the Act in paras 31 to 34 of the impugned judgment has not construed the legislative intent in right perspective. It is also averred that petitioners are admittedly the secured creditors and, thus, their rightful preferential claim cannot be ignored and denied and petitioners reasonably believe that sale proceeds lying with the Official Liquidator are from the sale of assets mortgaged by the Company in liquidation with the secured lenders and in view of aforesaid factual position, relevant provision of law contained in Section 529A was to be construed and applied by giving first charge to the petitioners and thus allowing of the full claim of workmen is contrary to the essence of law contained in Clause (c) of Section 529(1) of the Act, which would incur colossal financial losses, running to the tune of about Rs. 3 Crores, to the petitioners. 2. Lastly, it is stated that petitioners reasonably believe that they have correctly pointed out the error apparent on the face of record, whereby their preferential claims have not been appreciated by this Court. 3. The grounds taken for reviewing the impugned judgment in question, are not disclosing any new or important evidence or facts, which were not in the knowledge of the petitioners or could not be produced by them during hearing despite their best efforts and due diligence or discovery of mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other analogous sufficient cause. 4. 4. It is evident from the grounds raised for reviewing the judgment that petitioners are trying to re-argue the points, which have already been decided by this Court, after considering facts and circumstances placed before it as well as provisions of Section 529 read with Section 529A of the Act, in the light of pronouncements of the Apex Court referred in the judgment. The petitioners cannot be allowed to re-agitate points in review petition, which have already been decided by this Court. 5. Even if, two views are possible on a particular issue, it cannot be a ground to review a judgment, rendered after taking into consideration pronouncements of the Apex Court and provisions of relevant law in detail. Mere fact, that having regard to the material on record another view could be taken, is not a ground for review. 6. A decision not accepting the plea of a party, but passed after taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances brought on record and considering pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as provisions of law applicable to the case, cannot be termed having apparent error on the face of record. 7. Though, I am of the considered view that there is no error in interpreting the relevant provisions of law and appreciating pronouncements of the Apex Court, however, even if, plea of petitioners is accepted that there is incorrect interpretation of law, then also, for the detailed discussion in the impugned judgment, with respect to provisions of the Act and ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court, such error cannot be said to be self evident, but the same is to be detected by a process of reasoning and such error, if any, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record, so as to attract the jurisdiction under Order 47 of Civil Procedure Code. 8. Therefore, I find no ground is made out for entertaining this review petition. 9. This petition has been filed raising doubt about calculations and finding of this Court with respect to the share of workmen in terms of Section 529A of the Act. But the workmen have not been arrayed as party in the Review Petition nor copy of the petition has been supplied to them or their learned counsel. 9. This petition has been filed raising doubt about calculations and finding of this Court with respect to the share of workmen in terms of Section 529A of the Act. But the workmen have not been arrayed as party in the Review Petition nor copy of the petition has been supplied to them or their learned counsel. Therefore, for want of joining necessary party in the petition also, the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of above, petition is dismissed being devoid of merit alongwith pending application.