Managing Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation LTD., Govt. Of Jharkhand vs. Vijeta Projects And Infrastructure LTD., Through One Of Its Director, Sri Ravindra Bharti

Facts

The petitioners, Managing Director and Executive Engineer of Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Ltd., sought a review of a previous High Court order dated February 26, 2026. The original writ petition was filed by Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. concerning price variation, GST refund, and labour charges. Following a court-directed meeting, minutes were recorded on February 21, 2026, indicating a settlement on price variation but no decision on the GST refund due to lack of provisions in the SBD. The minutes were silent on labour charges. The petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit on February 26, 2026, agreeing to the minutes of the meeting. The review petition was filed by engaging new counsel, attempting to disown or embarrass the previous counsel.

Held

The Court held that the review petition was devoid of merit and constituted a dishonest attempt to secure a fresh hearing by engaging different counsel and casting aspersions on the previous counsel. The Court found that the conduct of the previous counsel, Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, was consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and the review petitioners' conduct in dealing with their lawyer was reprehensible. The Court noted that the order dated February 26, 2026, was based not only on the counsel's statement but also on the agreement reached in the minutes of the meeting, which the review petitioners had agreed to. The minutes clearly settled the price variation issue, while the GST refund and labour charges were left open for representation. The Court found no error in the previous order, which accurately reflected the limited agreement and explicitly left other issues undecided. The review petition was dismissed with costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the review petitioners are bound by the statements made by their previous counsel and the settlement recorded in the order dated February 26, 2026, particularly concerning the price variation issue, despite their current attempt to disown it? (Question of law) 2. Whether the review petition constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, given the attempt to re-argue the matter and cast aspersions on the previous counsel? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had express instructions to file the review petition and that their new counsel's arguments were made on these instructions. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Lavanya C and Another versus Vittal Gurudas Pai, emphasizing circumstances where a lawyer's statement might not bind a client. They also contended that the order dated February 26, 2026, merely recorded a settlement on price variation and left other issues open. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the same manner as the petitioners, but the court's reasoning implies that the respondents (original petitioner) relied on the previous court order and the binding nature of the settlement. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another versus N. Raju Reddiar and Another, and Om Prakash versus Suresh Kumar, highlighting the impropriety of filing review petitions with a change of counsel to re-argue matters or disown prior statements.