LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board

Review Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 1397Decided 18 Dec 2019
Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 786-787 of 2019
Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice S. Abdul Nazeer · Justice Navin Sinha

Background

Several small-scale manufacturers, including Shanti Conductors, Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, and Trusses and Towers, had supplied goods to the Assam State Electricity Board in the early 1990s and sought interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993. Their claims, pursued through money suits and years of appeals, were ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court's own earlier judgment of 23.01.2019, which held (among other things) that Shanti Conductors' suit was barred by limitation. The companies filed these review petitions arguing that the Court's 2019 judgment contained "errors apparent on the face of the record": primarily on points of limitation law (Section 19 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act) and on the maintainability of one of the connected appeals.

Decision Breakdown

The Court went through each petitioner's arguments in detail. For Shanti Conductors, it held that the benefit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act (fresh limitation period from part-payment) could not be claimed because this ground was never specifically pleaded or proved in the original suit, and the Section 14 exclusion-of-time argument failed because the earlier writ petition had been filed by a trade association, a different legal entity from the plaintiff company itself. For Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, the Court rejected the claim that there was an error in its finding on dates of supply, holding the record showed no supply after the Act came into force. For Trusses and Towers, the Court held the maintainability of its appeal had already been specifically considered and decided against it in the 2019 judgment, so no "error apparent" existed. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record in any of the three matters, the narrow ground on which a review can succeed, the Court dismissed all three review petitions, finally confirming its earlier 2019 decision.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition is not a second chance to re-argue a case on its merits: it succeeds only if there is a genuine, obvious error on the face of the original record, and a party who failed to specifically plead a legal ground (like a limitation exception) in the original suit cannot resurrect it later at the review stage.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case