upa 1 rpw51-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 51 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2009 MRC Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. ).. Petitioner Versus MRC Logistics Private Limited and another ).. Respondents Mr. V.P. Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr. Satish Shetye with Ms.Shruti Kelji i/b Ramesh Saroagi for Respondent No.1. Mr. G.N. Srinivasan a/w Mr.G. Hariharan i/b Dr. T.C. Kaushik for Respondent No.2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Friday, September 3,, 2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) This Review Petition has been placed before us because it seeks review of an judgment and order dated 10th June 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 462 of 2009 (delivered by the then Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Swatanter Kumar and S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.). The review petitioner is the original respondent No.2 whereas the first respondent is the original writ petitioner. 2. The first respondent to this review petition had impugned in the writ petition an order passed by the Regional Director, Western upa 2 rpw51-09 Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, who is respondent No.2 in the review petition directing the first respondent writ petitioner to change its name. That was under the powers conferred on the Central Government vide Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. By a detailed judgment the Division Bench had allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the order of the Regional Director on the ground that the Regional Director could not have given such a direction after a lapse of twelve months which is the period prescribed under Section 22(1)(a)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. Now, the review petitioner seeks review of the order on the ground that while deciding the issue the Division Bench did not notice the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1009 of 2008 decided on 22nd August 2008. The effect of this order which, according to the review petitioner, sends back the matter to the Regional Director is that the Regional Director was empowered to decide the application afresh and on merits. There was no question of the Regional Director then holding that the period had lapsed. This order of the learned Single Judge was not challenged by the original writ petitioner-respondent No.1 to this review petition and, therefore, in the teeth of this order, the writ petition itself could not have been entertained leave alone allowed by this Court. 5. We are afraid we cannot go into this question because that would amount to re-hearing the original writ petition on which the judgment under review has been rendered. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 1634 (Haridas Das vs Usha Rani Banik and others) has observed that review jurisdiction does not permit upa 3 rpw51-09 re-hearing of the main matter and the error must be apparent from the record and should not require a long drawn process of reasoning. In other words, the main matter cannot be re-opened in the garb of review jurisdiction. In the instant case, the order of the learned Single Judge which was pointed out by Mr. Sawant to us has been noticed in paragraph 6 of the judgment under review and while interpreting the Section and the law laid down in the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court, ultimately the Division Bench in paragraph 18 of the judgment under review held that in the first round of litigation the order was set aside by consent by the learned Single Judge and matter was remanded keeping open all contentions of the parties. Once the Division Bench has understood the order in this manner and ultimately held that the Central Government had no jurisdiction after the lapse of period of twelve months, that the conclusion can only be set aside by resorting to the remedy of appeal and the review jurisdiction does not permit us to go into these aspects all over again. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the review petition and it is accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.