Supreme Court Rejects Review Liberty Granted in Ganpati Dealcom: Subsequent Judgments No Ground for Review
Background and Context
The Supreme Court of India, in Union of India & Ors. Vs Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, has delivered a significant ruling that settles a critical procedural question — whether a subsequent judgment of a superior court reversing or modifying a legal position can serve as a valid ground for seeking review of an earlier order. The Court answered this question in the negative, firmly relying on the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
This judgment is particularly noteworthy because it expressly declined to follow a specific observation made by a co-equal three-Judge Bench in an earlier review petition, underscoring the importance of procedural consistency and the binding nature of prior coordinate Bench decisions.
The Core Issue Before the Court
The central question in this matter arose from proceedings connected to the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Union of India vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [RP(C) No.359 of 2023 in CA No.5783 of 2022]. In that review petition, a three-Judge Bench had, while disposing of the matter, inserted a liberty clause in paragraph 7, which read as follows:
"Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd (supra), liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment."
This observation effectively opened the door for parties whose matters had been decided on the basis of the original Ganpati Dealcom judgment to now seek review of those concluded proceedings. The present case before the Supreme Court tested whether such a liberty could be legitimately granted and, more fundamentally, whether it was consistent with established procedural law.
The Court's Disagreement With the Ganpati Dealcom Review Bench
The Supreme Court, in clear and unambiguous terms, expressed its inability to agree with the liberty granted in paragraph 7 of the three-Judge Bench's order in RP(C) No.359 of 2023 in CA No.5783 of 2022. The Court did not mince words — it found that the Bench deciding that review petition had proceeded without noticing a materially relevant and binding prior decision of another co-equal three-Judge Bench.
This is a rare but significant instance where the Supreme Court has openly departed from an observation of a co-ordinate Bench, doing so on the principled ground that the earlier co-ordinate decision in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. KL Rathi Steels Limited [(2024) 7 SCC 315] — which directly governed the issue — had been overlooked.