Andhra Pradesh High Court | ‘Clear Abuse of Law’ — NSL Textiles’ Review Plea in ₹131 Crore Industrial Incentives Dispute Rejected | Review Not Substitute for Appeal
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti pronounced its order on 7 August 2025, dismissing a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and recorded that "a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error." The petition was therefore dismissed without costs.
The matter concerned a review petition filed in relation to an earlier order dated 29 August 2023. The petitioner sought review and modification of the order, urging the court to direct the release of the total sanctioned, admitted, approved, and undisputed amount of Rs.131,30,28,649/- instead of Rs.83.87 crores, by further directing release of the balance Rs.47,43,28,649/-. The petitioner also prayed for sanction of Rs.45,59,72,420/- as pending incentives and interest amounting to Rs.190,80,15,274/- or any other amount determined by the court for delay in payments.
The petitioner filed the writ petition initially to challenge the alleged inaction of the respondents in complying with the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 read with G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 30 November 2016. It was contended that despite recommendations made by the State Level Committee (SLC) in its meetings, the admitted and sanctioned amounts had not been released. The petitioner claimed a total entitlement of Rs.131,30,28,649/- under the policies and sought directions for payment.
The respondents, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh through its Industries and Commerce Department, opposed the claim. A counter was filed contending that the petitioner was sanctioned Rs.322.06 crores as various industrial incentives, out of which Rs.190.76 crores had already been disbursed. The respondents stated that the remaining balance would be adjusted in terms of G.O.Rt.No.56 dated 5 April 2023. Regarding the claim for interest, the respondents stated that the petitioner was not entitled to such payment since incentives constituted public money.
The court, in its order dated 29 August 2023, after considering rival contentions and referring to observations made by the SLC in its meeting on 23 December 2019, held that the sanctioned and pending amount for release was Rs.83.87 crores, while Rs.44.45 crores was yet to be sanctioned. The court directed release of Rs.83.87 crores within six weeks and directed consideration of the balance Rs.44.45 crores. The claim for interest was specifically rejected.
Subsequently, the petitioner-initiated contempt proceedings (C.C.No.6718 of 2023) alleging non-compliance with the order dated 29 August 2023. The contempt case was closed on 18 October 2024 after counsel represented that the order had been complied with. Later, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking correction of the operative portion of the earlier order to substitute figures, but the said application was withdrawn on 21 March 2025.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present review petition, once again seeking modification of the earlier order, claiming entitlement to Rs.131.30 crores, pending sanction of Rs.45.59 crores, and interest for delayed payments. The respondents opposed the review on grounds of maintainability, delay, and lack of error apparent on the record.
The court examined the scope of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, referring to precedents including Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1372), Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741, Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria (2013) 15 SCC 534, and S. Mulari Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan (2023) 13 SCC 515. These authorities were cited to illustrate the narrow scope of review and the requirement of an error apparent on the face of the record for its maintainability.
The court extensively discussed the legal principles governing review jurisdiction. Citing Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, the court recorded: “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.” It further noted the distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision vitiated by an error apparent.
In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the principle was reiterated that mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot justify review, as review jurisdiction is limited to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record.
In Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club, the court quoted: “An application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.” It further recorded that sufficient reason could include misconception of fact or law, and invoked the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.
From Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, the court stated: “Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC… Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” The decision elaborated grounds when review would or would not be maintainable.
The court also cited N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria, wherein the Supreme Court cautioned that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering merits, noting that “The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise.”
It further relied on S. Mulari Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, which reiterated that review cannot substitute or rewrite the judgment.
Having set out the legal framework, the court applied these principles to the facts. It observed that the petitioner had not moved promptly after the 29 August 2023 order and instead availed benefits under it. The petitioner filed contempt proceedings and withdrew an earlier interlocutory application. The court noted: “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.”
On the question of limitation, the court referred to decisions including State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai (AIR 1964 SC 1006), Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (AIR 1970 SC 898), and the full bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Secretary, Badruka College of Commerce & Arts v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1997 AP 179), to record that the Limitation Act does not apply to review petitions under Article 226. However, the court stressed that latches and unexplained delay remain relevant considerations.
The court observed: “Thus, the law of limitation does not apply to a review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, 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.”
The conduct of the petitioner was noted, with the court remarking: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the review petition filed by the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law.”
It concluded that the petitioner’s grievance regarding interest had already been considered and negatived in the original writ petition, and if aggrieved, the appropriate remedy lay elsewhere, not in review.
In conclusion, the High Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the earlier order. It stated: “Given the discussion supra, this Court doesn’t find any error apparent on the face of the record, brooking interference in the order in the writ petition merit. The review petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.” The petition was accordingly dismissed without costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ranga Pujitha Gorantla
For the Respondents: GP for Industries and Commerce
Case Title: NSL Textiles Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case Number: I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.18644 of 2022
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
