[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
P.J. Mathews vs Mr.Rajeev Vidyadharan@ Rajeev Anchal on 17 July, 2025
RP No.822 of 2025
1
2025:KER:52660
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. 822 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.06.2025 IN WA NO.1224 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
P.J. MATHEWS
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O VALIYAVEETTIL IDICHANDY JACOB, RESIDING AT
NEDUMCHIRA, THOTTATHIL, ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 691573
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BIJOY P. PULIPRA
SMT.NITHYA SUMAM DAS
SMT.KESIYA BIJU
SMT.VARSHA VIJAY MENON
SHRI.R.S.ANANDAN
SHRI.M.VAIBHAV NATH
SHRI.KARTHIK K.S.
SHRI.SREEJITH V.
SMT.NIMIYA FEROZ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MR.RAJEEV VIDYADHARAN@ RAJEEV ANCHAL
AGED 63 YEARS
GURUCHANDRIKA, SNEHAPURAM, SANTHIGIRI.P.O., KOLIYAKODE
VILLAGE, KEEZTHONNAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,,
PIN - 695589
2 PADMAJAN RAJEEV
RP No.822 of 2025
2
2025:KER:52660
AGED 63 YEARS
12/600 (18/799), GURUCHANDRIKA,SANTHIGIRI.P.O.,
POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PADMAM RAJEEV, PIN -
695589
3 GARGI RAJEEV
AGED 40 YEARS
AGED 40 YEARS GARGI RAJEEV 12/600 (18/799),
GURUCHANDRIKA, SANTHIGIRI.P.O., POTHENCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695589
4 PADMAM MAVILAVEEDU SAHADEVAN @ SHAJI RAJEEV
AGED 55 YEARS
12/600 (18/799), GURUCHANDRIKA, SANTHIGIRI.P.O.
POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695589
5 M/S.GURUCHANDRIKA BUILDERS & PROPERTY (P) LTD
M/S.GURUCHANDRIKA BUILDERS & PROPERTY (P) LTD.,
CIN:U70101KL2010PTC02683, 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: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
7 UNIQUE CAVES (P) LTD
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
8 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
KOCHI BENCH, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN,
BMC ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN -
682021
9 DAVIDSON VATTUPPARAMPIL GEORGE
DAVIDSON VATTUPPARAMPIL GEORGE VATTUPPARAMPIL HOUSE,
MAMMOODU.P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN -
686553
10 PANICKER PRAVEEN RAJ GOPI
PANICKER PRAVEEN RAJ GOPI 7A, ROYAL HEIGHTS, OPPOSITE
RP No.822 of 2025
3
2025:KER:52660
N.S.S COLLEGE, NF GATE ROAD, TRIPUNITHRA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 682301
11 JAYALAL BALARAJAN
KURATHATHUSSERIL HOUSE, PATHIYOOR.P.O BHAGAVATHIPADI,
ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 690552
12 DENNIS LAVIN NORONHA
B-5, MARVE QUEEN-1, 1ST FLOOR, KHARODI, NEAR JURASSIC
PARK RESTAURANT, MARVE ROAD, MALAD WEST, MUMBAI, PIN -
400095
13 JONES MATHEWS
NEDUMCHIRA THOTTATHIL, ADICHANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN
- 691573
14 JUANITA JOSEPH THODUPARAMBIL
7/11, ASSISI NAGAR, P.L.LOKHANDE MARG, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI,
PIN - 400043
15 LALKUMAR SOMARAJAN
APD NO.5A, CORDIAL CASILDA, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL
COLLEGE.P.O., ULLOOR, KERALA, PIN - 695011
16 JATAYUPARA TOURISM (P) LTD.
CIN:U63040KL2014PTC037707, JATAYU EARTH'S CENTER JATAYU
JUNCTION, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. VASU JAYAPRAKASH, PIN - 691534
17 JATAYU SCULPTURE & MUSEUM PRIVATE LIMITED
CIN:U63040KL2014PTC037707, JATAYU EARTH'S CENTER JATAYU
JUNCTION, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. VASU JAYAPRAKASH, PIN - 691534
18 JATAYU SCULPTURE & MUSEUM PRIVATE LIMITED
U63040KL2014PTC035795, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
JATAYU EARTH'S CENTER, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, KERALA . 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
20 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE, CHIEF SECRETARY ,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
21 DIRECTOR, ECO-TOURISM DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
RP No.822 of 2025
4
2025:KER:52660
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 -
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 M.H,, 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
30 MATHEW PANDAKASALAIL
PANDAKASALA,KAMPAMKODU VAYAKKAL.P.O., VALAKAM, KOLLAM -
, KERALA, INDIA, 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
RP No.822 of 2025
5
2025:KER:52660
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
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON 17.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.822 of 2025
6
2025:KER:52660
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
RP No.822 of 2025
7
2025:KER:52660
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 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
RP No.822 of 2025
8
2025:KER:52660
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 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 say 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
RP No.822 of 2025
9
2025:KER:52660
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]].
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
RP No.822 of 2025
10
2025:KER:52660
State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Another [(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_2]
Source link