Nobody Is Perfect; Failure To Cite A Particular Judgment Doesn’t Automatically Invalidate Reasoning Of Decision: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court observed that the failure to cite a particular judgment does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.

The Court observed thus in a civil miscellaneous review application preferred by M/s Tata Steel Ltd. against Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow.

A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf remarked, “Nobody is perfect. This timeless adage resonates deeply within the realm of the judiciary, where judges, though addressed with titles like “Your Lordships”, are not immune to fallibility. Recognizing this fundamental truth and to prevent miscarriage of justice, High Courts, as Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India possess the inherent power to review their own orders. … Review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgment; rather it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgment does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.”

The Bench said that mere failure to cite a judgment does not, in and of itself, render the original judgment flawed.

Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka represented the petitioner while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Bipin Kumar Pandey represented the respondent.

Brief Facts -

The main question raised by M/S Tata Steel Ltd. was “whether in view of the definition of ‘purchase price’ under Section 2(gg) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (UPTTA), the applicant having paid the amount of Rs. 5,56,81,000/- also for the purchase of plant and machinery, apparatus and equipment, the same ought to have been included in the ‘Fixed Capital Investment’ and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the said amount merely on the ground that the amount was allowed as MODVAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA).

Other questions were also raised with regard to MODVAT allowed by the excise department. The question was answered by the High Court vide its order dated February 15, 2010 in favour of the petitioner. Against the said order, the respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed as not pressed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated September 9, 2010. The respondent filed the instant review application before the High Court assailing the order dated February 15, 2010.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… in recent times, there has been a misconception that review jurisdiction is tantamount to an appeal – a second chance to argue an already settled matter. At its core, review jurisdiction is a solemn duty bestowed upon the High Courts to rectify errors that may have crept into their judgments. It is not an avenue for re-argument or a platform for dissatisfied litigants to reiterate their grievances. Instead, it serves as a bulwark against miscarriage of justice, providing a mechanism for the correction of judicial fallibility. Judges, like all human beings, are liable to err.”

The Court added that, review jurisdiction stands as a sentinel against the tyranny of erroneous judgments, upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

“Yet, the misconception persists that review jurisdiction offers litigants a second bite at the cherry – a chance to reopen settled matters and re-litigate issues already adjudicated upon. This notion not only undermines the finality of judgments but also erodes the sanctity of judicial pronouncements. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once remarked, “Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.” Review jurisdiction, when exercised judiciously, embodies this wisdom – it is a beacon of hope for those aggrieved by manifest injustice, offering solace in the face of adversity. At its core, review jurisdiction is about scrutiny, not re-litigation. It is about examining the record of proceedings with a discerning eye, searching for errors of law, fact, or procedure”, it observed.

Furthermore, the Court enunciated that it is not a second chance for litigants to present their case anew or to introduce fresh evidence, rather, it is a solemn duty entrusted to the judiciary, a duty to ensure that justice is not just done, but seen to be done.

“The jurisprudence surrounding the power of review is as intricate as it is unequivocal. It delineates a stringent criterion wherein an appellant, desiring to invoke the mechanism of review against a judgment or order, must demonstrate the unearthing of new and pivotal matter or evidence – a revelation that, despite exhaustive and diligent inquiry, remained elusive to the court’s purview. This requirement embodies the essence of due diligence, mandating not merely a cursory glance but a thorough excavation into the depths of legal enquiry. Review jurisdiction is not to be misconstrued as a second bite at the proverbial apple, granting aggrieved parties an opportunity to rehash matters already adjudicated upon”, it also noted.

The Court added that in review jurisdiction, courts act as third umpires and their authority is circumscribed by the confines of the record before them, limiting their purview to errors glaringly evident on the face of record. It observed that should the pursuit of rectifying an alleged error necessitate a deeper and thorough examination, it stands to reason that such an error cannot be deemed ‘apparent’ in the truest sense.

“What is also surprising to me is that although the ground taken by the Respondent to withdraw their Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was liberty to approach this Court since as per them the main question of law was not decided by this Court in its judgment on February 15, 2010, the said ground does not find any mention in the instant review application. The failure to articulate consistent grounds for seeking review calls into question the bona fides of the Respondent’s application. One would expect that if a significant aspect of the case was left unaddressed in a prior judgment, as alleged by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would be foremost among the reason cited for seeking review. This inconsistent approach adopted by the Respondent could not be explained by them before this Court”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the review application.

Cause Title- M/s Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:85168)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka and Advocate Pratik J. Nagar.

Respondent: ACSC Bipin Kumar Pandey

Click here to read/download the Judgment