R K MALHOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, purported to be under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner-applicant has sought review of the judgment dated 11th September, 1995, rendered in CW 6113/95 - R.K.Malhotra & Others v. Union of India and others - dismissing the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioners having a share holding of 4.17%, 2.29%, 2.25% and 22.78% respectively in M/s Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Ltd. (respondent No.5) had challenged the approval granted by respondents 1 to 4 to M/s Gillette International (respondent No.6) in investing upto 49% of equity capital of the fifth respondent, inter alia, on the grounds that the approval granted was without authority of law; and that the material required to take decision was not available with respondents 1 to 4, the decision was vitiated for want of application of mind. The grounds seeking review are that the principal issues raised have remained unresolved and unadjudicated. The ground that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had usurped the powers of Reserve Bank of India, granted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) though sought to be urged in an application moved to amend the petition has remained undecided. It was pointed out by "the petitioners that the application of respondent No.6 lacked particulars regarding relevant factors, the same could not have been taken into consideration by respondents 1 to 4 while granting approval. Another ground is that there are errors apparent in the judgment, which is a sufficient cause to review the same. It is also stated that though the petitioner had moved an application seeking production of relevant files of respondents 1 to 4 and the court had also directed the relevant files to be brought to court, the application remained undecided. Thus, non disclosure of documents also constitute a sufficient cause for review of the judgment.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record and the judgment, we are of the view that there is no ground made out for review of the judgment.