Case Law Details
Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited and another Vs ITO (Orissa High Court)
The Orissa High Court recently addressed a significant legal question concerning its powers of review in the case of Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited and another vs ITO. The petitioners sought a review of an order dated 14th December 2023, passed by a coordinate Bench. This article delves into the details of the judgment, examining the court’s reasoning and its implications.
Background of the Case
The matter was heard through a hybrid mode, where the petitioners requested a review of the previous order. The original order stated:
“This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since the order impugned is an appealable one, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to pursue their remedy before the appellate authority in accordance with law.
On the prayer of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, original copies/certified copies of the assessment order, if any filed, be returned to the learned counsel for the Petitioners on substitution of photocopy thereof.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
Petitioners’ Argument
Mr. Sidhartha Ray, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argued that in similar cases, different views had been expressed. He contended that the order dated 14th December 2023, required a review and cited the Supreme Court case of Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 1345) to support his argument.
Court’s Reasoning
The Orissa High Court, exercising its review jurisdiction, clarified that it could not function as an appellate authority over an order passed by a coordinate Bench. The court found no compelling reason to review the order dated 14th December 2023.
The key points noted by the court included:
1. Review Jurisdiction Limitations: The court emphasized that its role in review jurisdiction is not to re-evaluate the merits of the case but to correct any apparent errors. Acting as an appellate body would overstep its judicial boundaries.
2. Consistency in Judicial Decisions: The court maintained the importance of consistency and respect for decisions made by coordinate Benches, avoiding unnecessary re-litigation of settled matters.
Conclusion
The review application filed by Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that a High Court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own coordinate Bench’s decisions. This judgment underscores the limitations of review jurisdiction and the importance of judicial consistency.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. The petitioners in the present review application sought review of an order dated 14.12.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19604 of 2023, which reads as under:
“This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Since the order impugned is appealable one, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to pursue their remedy before the appellate authority in accordance with law.
4. On the prayer of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, original copies/certified copies of the assessment order, if any filed, be returned to the learned counsel for the Petitioners on substitution of photocopy thereof.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
3. Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that in similar set of facts in other cases, different views have been expressed and, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 needs to be reviewed. He has made certain submissions to question the correctness of the order which is under review. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar; AIR 1987 SC 1345.
4. This Court, exercising its review jurisdiction, cannot sit as an appellate authority over an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. We do not find any reason to review the said order dated 14.12.2023.
5. In such view of the matter, the review application stands dismissed.
Author Bio
