Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (MAHARASHTRA) LTDversusDEEPAK D PATIL AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The review petition is dismissed as it does not disclose any patent error and merely seeks re‑appreciation of facts.

Summary

The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed a review petition after an earlier unsuccessful round before the Supreme Court, alleging factual errors in the judgment concerning continuous employment. The petitioner claimed the findings were factually incorrect but failed to pinpoint specific errors or provide supporting material. The Court observed that mere assertions without detailed identification do not constitute a ground for review and that the raised grounds sought a re‑appreciation of facts rather than correcting a patent error. It held that no error apparent on the face of the record existed. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • What constitutes a sufficient ground for a review petition when alleged factual errors are not specifically identified
  • Whether the judgment contains any patent or self‑evident error that can be corrected in review jurisdiction

Subjects

  • review petition
  • factual error
  • patent error
  • re‑appreciation of facts
  • high court
  • civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                               4-RPW(ST)-21340-2026-F.doc



                                                               Sayali


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 21340 OF 2026
                             IN
               WRIT PETITION NO. 5063 OF 2012

City And Industrial
Development Corporation
(Maharashtra) Ltd                            … Petitioner
           V/s.
Deepak D Patil And Ors.                      … Respondents

                               WITH
            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6591 OF 2026


Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.
Siddhiqui, Mr. Rahul Sinha, Mr. Soham Bhalerao,Mr.
Arnav Ashtikar i/b DSK Legal, for Petitioner- CIDCO.
Ms. Vaishali Jagdale with Yash K. Jagdale, for
Respondents.
                        CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                            DATED      : AUGUST 25, 2026
P.C.:

1.      After having been unsuccessful in the earlier round before
the Supreme Court, the Petitioner has filed the present Review
Petition.

2.      The Petitioner contends that there are certain factual
errors in the judgment and that the findings recorded with
regard to continuous employment are also factually incorrect.



                                 1
                                              4-RPW(ST)-21340-2026-F.doc


3.    However, on careful perusal of the Review Petition, I find
that the Petitioner has not specifically identified the alleged
factual errors in the judgment. Mere assertion that certain
findings are factually incorrect, without pointing out the
particular finding which suffers from such error and the material
on record demonstrating the error, cannot constitute a ground
for review. Grounds M, N and O are essentially based upon the
alleged admissions of the workers regarding their period of work
being less than 240 days prior to the date of filing of the
complaint. These grounds, therefore, seek reconsideration of the
factual appreciation already undertaken rather than pointing out
any error which is apparent on the face of the record.

4.    In my opinion, the judgment does not suffer from any
error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds raised by
the Petitioner do not disclose any patent or self-evident error
which can be corrected in review jurisdiction. The Petitioner is,
in substance, seeking a re-appreciation of the facts and findings
already considered, which cannot by itself be a sufficient ground
for interference in review.

5.    Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed.



                                          (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.