In a review petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking review of a judgment dated 23-03-2026, after liberty for the same was granted by the Supreme Court by an order dated 06-04-2024, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf did not find any ground to review the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the present petition.
One of the respondents had filed a writ petition assailing a decision of the M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd, i.e., the Tender Inviting Authority, whereby the respondent had been disqualified. This writ petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 06-01-2025 of this Court.
M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd. filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, and by a judgment dated 09-09-2025, the Supreme Court noticed that after the bench had reserved its judgment, a written note was filed by the present petitioner upon which the bench relied while dismissing the petition. The Supreme Court noticed that the written note filed after the judgment was reserved raised a contentious issue, which is why the matter was remitted to this Court.
The Court permitted the present petitioner to file an affidavit clarifying its objection and permitted the writ petitioner to file a response for the same. Not only was the affidavit filed, but several other documents were as well. A judgment was delivered on 23-03-2026. The present petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and was granted liberty to approach the Court for an analysis of whether the affidavit was filed and taken on record.
The present petitioner contended that the affidavit was filed on 25-11-2025, but upon questioning, the petitioner stated that it was uploaded on 26-11-2025. It was stated that when the petitioner wished to rely on the affidavit, the Court had declined to take the same on record on the grounds that substantial arguments had already been advanced and that no party could be permitted to file further pleadings.
The Court noted that the High Court uses an ERP digital platform, and advocates are given the facility to upload documents digitally, which are placed in a reference section. It was stated that the reference section does not comprise documents that are taken on record and is not a part of the judicial record, but is merely a facility given to the counsels and the Court Officer to upload bare acts, documents, and judgments that the parties wish to refer to at the time of making submissions.
The Court noted that the subject additional affidavit was merely uploaded in the reference on 26-11-2025. After perusal of the affidavit, the Court found that the same was attested on 26-11-2025, which clearly showed that the petitioner’s argument was contrary to the record. The Court stated that the petitioner’s contention regarding a reply to the additional affidavit by respondent 1 was not borne out from the record and that the alleged reply did not form part of the judicial record.
Further, the Court said that a misstatement was made before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition that the additional affidavit was filed on 25-11-2025, which led to the petitioner being granted liberty to file a review petition before the Court. The Court clarified that the additional affidavit was not part of the judicial record and was not taken into account when the petition was disposed of.
Thus, the Court found no ground to review the impugned order and dismissed the present petition while expressing displeasure over the conduct of the petitioner and its counsel for making a misstatement on the judicial record.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Kartik Seth, Mr. Nikhil Nasre, Mr. Aditya Khandekar
For Respondents – Mr. Arpan Pawar (Sr. Adv), Mr. Devendra Chouhan (Sr. Adv), Mr. Chiranjeev Sharma, Mr. Akshat Arjaria, Mr. Satish Agrawal, Mr. Yashwardhan Agrawal, Mr. Arpan Agrawal, Mr. Praneet Niranjan, Mr. Santosh Ghate, Mr. Chaitanya Dhruv
