Kerala High Court
Jatayupara Tourism Pvt Ltd vs Mr.Rajeev Vidyadharan@ Rajeev Anchal on 17 July, 2025
RP 854 of 2025
1
2025:KER:52661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 854 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.06.2025 IN WA NO.1224 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
JATAYUPARA TOURISM PVT LTD.
CIN: U63040KL2014PTC037707 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT 'JATAYU EARTH'S CENTRE, JATAYU JUNCTION,
CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM, KERALA 691 534, REPRESENTED BY
ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANKAR P PANICKER
SHRI.AJAY GEORGE
SHRI.AJITH KUMAR.S
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MR.RAJEEV VIDYADHARAN@ RAJEEV ANCHAL
RESIDING AT GURUCHANDRIKA, SNEHAPURAM, SANTHIGIRI.P.O.,
KOLIYAKODE VILLAGE, KEEZTHONNAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA- PIN-695589
2 PADMAJAN RAJEEV
RESIDING AT 12/600 (18/799), GURUCHANDRIKA,
SANTHIGIRI.P.O., POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695 589
3 GARGI RAJEEV
RESIDING AT 12/600 (18/799), GURUCHANDRIKA,
SANTHIGIRI.P.O., POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA., PIN -695589
RP 854 of 2025
2
2025:KER:52661
4 PADMAM MAVILAVEEDU SAHADEVAN @ SHAJI RAJEEV
AGED 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT 12/600 (18/799), GURUCHANDRIKA,
SANTHIGIRI.P.O., POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA. , PIN -695589
5 M/S.GURUCHANDRIKA BUILDERS & PROPERTY (P) LTD
CIN:U70101KL2010PTC026835, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, MR.RAJEEV VIDYADHARAN ALIAS RAJEEV ANCHAL,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT JATAYU EARTH'S CENTER,
CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA,PIN -691534
6 JATAYUPARA ADVENTURE TOURISM (P) LTD.,
CIN: U63040KL2014PTC035795, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, GARGI RAJEEV, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
JATAYU EARTH'S CENTER, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -691534
7 GURUCHANDRIKA STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED
CIN:U74999KL2017PTC051110, ANUGRAHAM, T.C.15/601, PLOT
NO.51, UDARASIROMANI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, RAJEEV VIDYADHARAN @ RAJEEV ANCHAL, PIN -
695010
8 UNIQUE CAVES (P) LTD
CIN:U63040KL2012PTC030706 JATAYU EARTH'S CENTER,
CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA. REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJEEV VIDYADHARAN @RAJEEV
ANCHAL. PIN -691534
9 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH,
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, BMC ROAD,
THRIKKAKARA P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 021
10 P.J. MATHEWS,
NEDUMCHIRA THOTTATHIL, ADICHANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN
-691573
11 DAVIDSON VATTUPPARAMPIL GEORGE
VATTUPPARAMPIL HOUSE, MAMMOODU.P.O., CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686553
12 PANICKER PRAVEEN RAJ GOPI
7A, ROYAL HEIGHTS, OPPOSITE N.S.S COLLEGE, NF GATE
ROAD, TRIPUNITHRA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,, PIN - 682301
13 JAYALAL BALARAJAN
KURATHATHUSSERIL HOUSE, PATHIYOOR. P.O.,
RP 854 of 2025
3
2025:KER:52661
BHAGAVATHIPADI, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,, PIN - 690552
14 DENNIS LAVIN NORONHA
B-5, MARVE QUEEN-1, 1ST FLOOR, KHARODI, NEAR JURASSIC
PARK RESTAURANT, MARVE ROAD, MALAD WEST, MUMBAI, PIN -
400095
15 JONES MATHEWS
NEDUMCHIRA THOTTATHIL, ADICHANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM-, PIN
- 691573
16 JUANITA JOSEPH THODUPARAMBIL
7/11, ASSISI NAGAR, P.L. LOKHANDE MARG, CHEMBUR,
MUMBAI, PIN - 400043
17 LALKUMAR SOMARAJAN
, APD NO.5A, CORDIAL CASILDA, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL
COLLEGE.P.O., ULLOOR, KERALA, PIN - 695011
18 JATAYU SCULPTURE & MUSEUM PRIVATE LIMITED
CIN NO. U63040KL2014PTC035795, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT JATAYU EARTH'S CENTER, CHADAYAMANGALAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA- PIN . REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, MS USHA B. PILLAI, PIN - 691534
19 P.R.NARAYANAN NAIR
GOKULAM A-18, TENNIS CLUB ENCLAVE, KOWDIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
0 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE, CHIEF SECRETARY
,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
21 DIRECTOR, ECO-TOURISM DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM,
KERALA,, PIN - 695033
22 PRINCE RAVI
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, GSPU & ASSOCIATES, T.C12/1443(2),
FIRST FLOOR, SYAM SCION, PMG-LAW COLLEGE ROAD, VIKAS
BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
23 SAJEE P. NAIR
SREESANKARAM, FIRST FLOOR, KRA 74 OPP.
KAITHAMUKKU.P.O., ATHANILANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695024
24 RAJEEV BHASKARAN
THULASI BHAVAN, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN -
RP 854 of 2025
4
2025:KER:52661
691534
25 KRISHNAN KOODACHERI
SREE KRISHNA HOUSE, CHERUSSERI NAGAR, PALLIKULAM,
CHIRAKKAL.P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670001
26 VASU JAYAPRAKASH
ARIYANNOOR HOUSE, KAITHA SOUTH, KANNAMANGALAM,
CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA KERALA,, PIN -
690106
27 AJIT KUMAR BALARAMAN
4B 29 UNITY APARTMENT, BAF HIRA NAGAR, KHARODI MARVE
ROAD, NEAR FIRE STATION, MALAD(WEST), MUMBAI, PIN -
400095
28 AJAY BALARAMAN
4B 29 UNITY APARTMENT, BAF HIRA NAGAR, KHARODI MARVE
ROAD, NEAR FIRE STATION, MALAD(WEST), MUMBAI. M.H,, PIN
- 400095
29 HARIDAS KRISHNANKUTTY
RARATH HOUSE PERUVEMBA.P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 678531
0 MATHEW PANDAKASALAIL
PANDAKASALA, KAMPAMKODU, VAYAKKAL.P.O., VALAKAM,
KOLLAM, KERALA,, PIN - 691532
31 C. MOHANAN PILLAI
S/O K. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, KRISHNA PRIYA,
PODIYATTUVILA.P.O., VALAKOM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691532
32 SHRI M.R BHAT ICLS
HOUSE NO. 1-4, 65/3 STREET NO. 8 LANE, ADJACENT TO MORE
SUPERMARKET, HABSIGUDA, TELANGANA,, PIN - 500007
33 SHRI SHAWN JEFF CHRISTOPHER
JVR & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WARRIOM ROAD
OPPOSITE ST. GEORGE, CHURCH, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI, KERALA,
PIN - 682016
BY ADVS.
SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON
SHRI.V.AJAKUMAR
SMT.VINITHA S.T.
SMT.SANDRA ANN T. JOSEPH
RP 854 of 2025
5
2025:KER:52661
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP 854 of 2025
6
2025:KER:52661
ORDER
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The present Review Petition has been filed under Order XLVII
Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC, 1908 seeking review of the judgment
dated 09.06.2025 passed in WA No.1224/2025 whereby Writ Appeal was
disposed of upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and
directions were issued to avail alternative remedy of appeal under Section 421
of the Companies Act, 2013. The Review Petitioner is respondent No.10 in the
WA and in the Writ Petition as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the directions/liberty contained in
paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment which states as follows:
“In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the
case, the appellants are granted liberty to approach the NCLAT
in appeal within a period of 15 days from today. If the appellants
approach the Appellate Tribunal within the aforesaid period, the
period of limitation prescribed to prefer an appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal shall not come in the way of filing the appeal.
The learned Appellate Tribunal shall not dismiss the appeal on
the ground of delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. It
is made clear that if the appeal is not filed within the afore said
period, then the NCLAT may entertain the appeal subject to law
of limitation and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously
as possible.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
aforesaid direction is ex-facie erroneous and is liable to be treated as non-est in
law since such a direction constitutes an error apparent on the face of record
as it effectively overrides the express statutory bar of limitation prescribed
under Section 421 of the Companies Act which does not confer any jurisdiction
upon this Court to extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the
NCLAT. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Writ Petitioner
RP 854 of 2025
7
2025:KER:52661
had never intended to file the appeal before the NCLAT against the impugned
Ext.P17 and P18 orders and had never prayed for any relief or extension of
limitation period. In Writ Appeal, this Court by granting 15 days time to file the
appeal, would exceed the prescribed period to prefer an appeal by more than
250 days from the statutory limitation of 45 days as provided under Section
421. The provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act cannot be invoked in such
a situation. As such, the prayer has been made to recall the impugned
judgment dated 09.06.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Thomas Thomas & Another v.
Kottayam Municipality and Another [2008 (4) KHC 26] to contend that
provisions of Article 226 cannot be invoked to by-pass the statutory remedy
especially when the statutory authority has no such power to condone such
delay under the Limitation Act. If a special statute prescribes the period of
limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act will stand excluded as provided
under Section 29(2) to that extent. Learned counsel also relied on judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and
Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt.Ltd & Another [(2009) 5 SCC 791] to
contend that the courts cannot ignore the legislative intention and therefore,
could not extend the limitation period by giving liberal interpretation.
Therefore, the direction issued by this Court granting liberty to file an appeal
by giving 15 days’ time is absolutely against the provisions of the Special Act.
Therefore, Review Petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer and submitted that this Court while passing the impugned judgment has
granted 15 days time to approach the NCLAT taking into consideration the
RP 854 of 2025
8
2025:KER:52661
provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act which provides for exclusion of
time of proceedings bona fide in Court without jurisdiction was considered.
Moreover as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, it does not savep Section
421 of the Companies Act and therefore, it could have no application.
Moreover, Section 12 of the Limitation Act would apply instead of Section 5.
Admittedly, the Writ Petition was filed on 15.10.2024 prior to the passing of the
order dated 22.10.2024 by the NCLT which was subsequently challenged by
way of amendment and since then, the respondent was prosecuting the case in
Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and now in Review Petition. As per Section 12, while
computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day
from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. The learned
counsel submitted that the appeal is already preferred before the NCLAT as per
the directions of this Court in Writ Appeal. In view of the aforesaid, the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not point out any apparent error on the face of
record so as to fall within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC,
1908. In such a situation, this Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing
is not permissible. In order to seek review, the petitioner has to demonstrate
that the order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court
while deciding the review petition cannot sit in appeal over the judgment
passed by it. The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on
merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be
considered on merits. [See:J.R.Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC
1681), S.Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10
SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and
Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612]].
RP 854 of 2025
9
2025:KER:52661
7. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for
successfully seeking review as recognized by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are made
out in the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi
Ammal (supra) has held that in order to seek review, it has to be
demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which
is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed
merely because it is erroneous.
8. In another case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of
West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta [(2008) 8 SCC 612] has held that “a party
cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review.”
9. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments
passed in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal and Kamal Sengupta (supra),
there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the
judgment impugned.
The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
cost.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
Nsd
[ad_1]
Source link