Supreme Court Dismisses Union’s Review Plea On Benami Law, Declares 2024 Permission To Reopen “Ganpati Dealcom”-Based Cases Incorrect
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a review petition filed by the Union Government, noting that the later overruling of a legal precedent cannot be invoked as a basis for seeking review of a concluded order . The petition related to an order that relied on the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom ruling, which had struck down certain provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. That 2022 decision was subsequently recalled in October 2024 by a three-Judge Bench in Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., led by the then Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, which had also permitted the Union to seek review in earlier matters influenced by the precedent. In this case, the Court declined to extend that liberty.
The Union Government filed a review petition challenging an earlier order of the Supreme Court that had been passed in proceedings arising from a special leave petition. The review petition concerned an order that had relied on the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment. The matter came before a Division Bench after a later three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. stated that parties affected by orders based on the 2022 ruling could seek review. The Union Government sought similar liberty in the present case.
During consideration of the review petition, the Court examined the later three-Judge Bench ruling alongside the earlier judgment in KL Rathi Steels Limited, which involved interpretation of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Bench assessed whether the Union Government could rely on the subsequent change in legal position to request a review of the earlier order.
The Court examined the liberty granted in paragraph 7 of the later three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., quoting: “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.”
The Bench recorded its disagreement with that observation and stated: “We express our inability to agree with the observations made by the three-Judge Bench of this Court… disposed of in paragraph 7 thereof.”
To explain this position, the Court referred to the earlier three-Judge Bench judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. KL Rathi Steels Limited, noting that it arose “on a difference of opinion between a Bench of two Judges… and recorded its inability to be at ad idem with the Hon’ble Presiding Judge.”
The Bench then reproduced the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, quoting: “The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”
Finally, the Court stated: “A three-Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment of this Court in KL Rathi Steels Limited (supra) which is also of a co-equal strength and prior in time.”
The Court directed: “Therefore, following the judgment of this Court in KL Rathi Steels Limited (supra), we decline to grant liberty to seek review in the present case. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Virendra Amrutbhai Patel
Case Number: Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41584/2025; (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8229/2024)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Augustine George Masih
