2021 (6) TMI 1166 - HC - Indian Laws

Non-consideration of the entitlement of the petitioner for refund of 25% amount already deposited - error apparent on the face of the record - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.10.2020 indicates that neither the argument that an interim order was passed by the DRT in favour of the borrower on the same date was made nor any argument was made that the remaining 25% amount was deposited by the petitioner at the time of e-auction should be refunded. On a pointed quarry by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny that in fact no prayer to that effect was made in the prayer clause of the memo of writ petition. The order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court therefore cannot be faulted for something which was not argued before it. Rehearing under the garb of review is not permissible. The review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Review of order dismissing writ petition assailing communication and auction notice.

The judgment involves a review petition filed by Smt. Alisha Khan seeking review of an order passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case against Indian Bank and others. The petitioner argued that due to an interim order by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in favor of the borrower on the same day as the e-auction, she could not deposit the remaining 75% of the auction amount. Additionally, she claimed financial crisis due to the lockdown prevented her from arranging the amount. The petitioner contended that the Division Bench erred in not considering her entitlement for a refund of the 25% amount already deposited. However, the Division Bench noted that these arguments were not presented during the original proceedings and were not included in the prayer clause of the writ petition. The court ruled that a review cannot be used for a rehearing and found no reason to review the previous order.

The judgment highlights the importance of presenting all relevant arguments during the original proceedings as the court cannot fault an order for issues not raised before it. The court emphasized that a review petition is not a platform for a rehearing and must be based on specific grounds. The decision underscores the need for parties to ensure that all arguments and claims are properly included in the initial petition to avoid later challenges based on new grounds not previously raised. The judgment ultimately dismissed the review petition, reiterating that the original order stands as the arguments raised in the review were not part of the original case.