'Clear Abuse Of Law': Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects NSL Textiles Review Plea In Industrial Incentive Arrears Dispute

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by NSL Textiles, which sought modification of an earlier order of 2023— where the High Court had directed the State to release the sanctioned amount of Rs. 83.87 crores as industrial incentives under the Government's Industrial Investment Promotion Policies of 2005–2010 and 2010–2015.Specifically, the petitioner company claimed that it was entitled to an amount of Rs. 131,30,28,649, instead of Rs. 83.87 crores, in addition to Rs. 45,59,72,420 payable as incentives and Rs. 190,80,15,274 payable as interest on account of delay in receipt of incentives.As the petitioner had filed the review petition only after availing the benefit of the 2023 order and after realising the Rs. 83.87 crores, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,“It is very unfortunate that the petitioner did not move his little finger from the date of the order, i.e. from 29.08.2023, till the amount was realised as per the order and the contempt case is closed. In fact, this Court in paras 14 and 15 specifically observed regarding the entitlement of the petitioner and eventually, while negativing the claim for interest, directed the respondents to release 83.87 crores within six weeks from the date of the said order. Insofar as the amount of Rs.44.45 crores, yet to be sanctioned, the respondents are directed to release as per the claim. Thus, the petitioner, having availed the benefit, as per the order, and, it seems, after realising the amount, resorted to filing different interlocutory applications, though there is no apparent error on the face of the record, since the limitation doesn't apply to a review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of the petitioner makes it apparent.”Reiterating that the law of limitation does not apply to a review petition, the Court stated,“... the petitioner must explain the latches in approaching the court belatedly. In the case at hand, the petitioner, after realising Rs.83.87 crores, filed this review petition, almost after one and a half years. No plausible reason was mentioned in the affidavit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the review petition filed by the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law.”BackgroundThe petitioner was originally sanctioned an amount of Rs.322.06 crores towards various industrial incentives, out of which Rs.190.76 crores was disbursed to the petitioner units. For the balance amount, the High Court, in the 2023 order, directed the release of the sanctioned Rs.83.87 crores, and further ordered the State to consider and release the amount of Rs.44.45 crores which was pending to be sanctioned. Subsequently, the claim of interest worth Rs.190,80,15,274 was rejected by the Court.Aggrieved by the order of 2023, the petitioner filed the review petition. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application in 2024 seeking modification of the 2023 order, however, the same was withdrawn.In the review petition, the petitioner pleaded that it was entitled to an amount of Rs.1,31,30,28,649/- instead of Rs.83.87 crores, along with an interest on delay, and hence sought modification of the 2023 order.Court's Findings:At the outset, the Court examined the scope of Section 114 of CPC– which grants the Court the power to review its own judgment or order, and Order 47 Rule 1, which prescribes the procedure for review. Noting that a review cannot be disguised as an appeal, the Court observed,“The power of review can be invoked when an error, apparent on face of the record, surfaces. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Rehearing of the matter in the guise of a review is impermissible. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is no ground for review. A review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute and rewrite the judgment. An application for review would be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend upon the facts of each case. A point which has already been dealt with and answered cannot be reviewed on the ground that another view is also possible.”The petitioner had filed the review petition roughly one and a half years after the passing of the 2023 order and after acquiring its benefit and subsequently failed to explain the delay, which the Court termed as a "clear abuse of process of law".Additionally, with respect to the issue of interest, the Court observed,"While disposing of the writ petition, this Court negatived the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis interest. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order in the writ petition, the petitioner would have availed of the effective remedy."The Court thus found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed the same.Case Details:Case Number: IA 1 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 18644/2022 Case Title: NSL TEXTILES LIMITED v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHClick...

'Clear Abuse Of Law': Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects NSL Textiles Review Plea In Industrial Incentive Arrears Dispute

Saahas Arora

Tags