Bench: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court of India on August 20, 2025, before CGI B.R Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih heard a criminal appeal filed by the Appellant against the Delhi High Court’s order recalling its earlier judgment in the same case. The dispute arose between the Appellant and the Respondent regarding Montreux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (MRPL), formed under an MoU in December 2005 to develop a resort at Kasauli. Later, 51% of the company’s shares were transferred to the Appellant. The Respondent had filed CP (Company Petition) No 114 of 2007, alleging oppression and mismanagement. During proceedings, the Respondent claimed that the AGM minutes filed by the Appellant were forged and sought prosecution for perjury under Section 340 CrPC. The Supreme Court had earlier directed that these issues be decided by the CLB/NCLT and barred the High Court from interfering. Later, the Respondent filed a review petition before the High Court, stating that the CP had been withdrawn—a fact not disclosed earlier. The High Court accepted this and recalled its August 13, 2020 judgment, restoring the proceedings, which the Appellant then challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and governed entirely by the CrPC. Section 362 CrPC prevents criminal courts from reviewing or altering their judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Therefore, the High Court could not use civil review provisions to recall its 2020 judgment.
The Court observed that once a criminal court has signed its judgment or final order, it becomes functus officio, leaving no scope to revisit the matter except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or when explicitly provided under law. The Court observed that the recall amounted to a substantive review, which is not allowed under the CrPC, and noted that the Respondent had failed to disclose the prior withdrawal of CP, attempting to mislead the Court. The bench further noted that the ground cited for review, the withdrawal of CP 114 of 2007, was available to the Khosla Group at the time of the original hearing but was not raised. Instead, the group had expressly represented that the NCLT was seized of the matter.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s recall order dated 05.05.2021 and restored the original judgement in favor of the Appellant.
