SRI SAMBHUNATH BANERJEE vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 28 November 2025

(1) Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.

(2) No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application. So according to Rule 5A scope of review is very limited to the extent of any mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Judgment in SA/151/2021 was pronounced on 26/09/2023 where in SA alongwith IA/997 of 2022 and IA/1882/2022 were dismissed on contest against the Respondents. At the time of hearing of SA/151/2021 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Celir Llp vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. was not placed by the parties. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Celir Llp vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. was passed on 21/09/2023. Review Applicant has relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs vs Vinod Kumar Rawat & ors. wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “30. The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence

Rina S. Date of the Order necessary which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the Rule.

31. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.”

33. In State of Haryana v. M.P. Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457 this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 46566, para 27) “27. A review petition filed by the appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review.” Review Applicant has also relied upon the authority of Hon’ble High Court in the matter of Chitta Ranjan Misra vs Subrata Majhi and ors. wherein Hon’ble High Court refers the decision of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., reported (2008) 14 SCC 171, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: - “35. In our judgment, it is also well settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the court to pronounce a “new rule” but to maintain and expound the “old one”. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the

Rina S. Date of the Order necessary earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood.” Review Applicant has also relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.G. Derasari & Anr. Vs. Union of India & ors. At paragraph 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that : “Having considered the rival submissions at the bar, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal was not entitled to in a contempt proceeding, to consider the legality of its earlier order which has reached finality not being assailed or annulled by a competent forum. If the Tribunal has not looked into any previous decision of this Court which is the law of the land and by which it was bound, the remedy available to the aggrieved person was to file an application for review. Admittedly, no review application was filed before the Tribunal. In an application for contempt, the Tribunal was only concerned with the question whether the earlier decision has reached its finality and whether the same has been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Tribunal or Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which has not been assailed, and reverse its earlier decision. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained, the same being beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a contempt proceeding.” Ld. Advocate for the Auction Purchaser has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble High court of Bombay in Rajkumar Ramavtar Chourasia Vs Mathew Charian Christian. Hon’ble High court of Bombay at paragraph 14 and 15 has observed that : “14. Thus, the consistent view is that a decision erroneous in law is certainly no ground for ordering a review. If a Court had decided a point, but decided it erroneously, the error cannot be said to be one apparent on the face of the record or even

Rina S. Date of the Order necessary analogous to it. In the present case also, the learned Single Judge relied upon certain observations of an earlier Division Bench decision in Indra Singh's case as certain provisions of the local Rent Act were in pari materia with the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and found, though erroneously, that the quit notice founded upon the grant of permission by the Controller was ineffective, the permission being sub judice and the suit as such was not tenable. It cannot be said that it was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It was at best a mistake of erroneous application of the law as was laid down in Indra Singh's case.

15. Shri J.N Chandurkar the learned counsel for the applicant, however, referred to the observations of the Supreme Court appearing in Shatrunjit v. Md. A. Azim Khan . 1971 2 SCC 200 “Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the High Court decided the matter, the High Court applied the law as it stood and a subsequent change of law could not be a ground for review. The appellant's contention is not acceptable in the present case for two principal reasons; first, it is not a subsequent law. It is the law which all along was there from 1952. The deeming provision is fully effective and operative as from 25 May, 1953 when the 1952 Act came into force. The result is that the Court is to apply the legal provision as it always stood. It would, therefore, be error on the face of the record. The error would be that the law that was applied was not the law which is applicable”. Ld. Advocate for the Auction Purchaser has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Parsion Devi & ors vs Sumitri Devi & ors. wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at paragraph 9 has observed that : “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise

Rina S. Date of the Order necessary of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." Ld. Advocate for the Auction Purchaser has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Government of NCT of Delhi and another Vs K. L. Rathi Steels Limited and others wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at paragraph 86.1., 86.2. 89. has observed that: “86.1 Hari Sankar Pal V. Anath Nath Mitter, a five-judge Bench decision of the Federal Court was alluded to, wherein it was observed that if a decision is erroneous in law, the same is certainly no ground for ordering review. Moreover, if the case had been decided erroneously, the error could not be construed as being one apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule CPC.” “86.2 Reliance was also placed on Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi and it was observed that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.

89. In the aforesaid case Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. has also been adverted to wherein this Court delineated on some of the grounds as to when the review will not be maintainable as under : (Kamlesh Verma case, SCC pp. 333-34, para 20) “20 ................ 20.2 ................... (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original

Rina S. Date of the Order necessary hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition, and

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” As decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied by the Auction Purchaser judgment cannot be reviewed if error or mistake apparent on the face of record. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has examined scope of order 47 of the CPC,1908. Rule 5A is similar of Order 47 Rule 1, of CPC,1908. Review Applicant has pleaded that in the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Celir Llp vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Sai Annadhatha Polymers (supra) and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta regarding interpretation of the under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Perused the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Celir Llp vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Advocate for the Misc. Applicant refers paragraph 51 of judgment Celir Llp vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the observation of Hon’ble High

Rina S. Date of the Order necessary Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court has given their findings at paragraph 105 (vii) and upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Sai Annadhatha Polymers (supra) and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta (supra) lay down the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court held that scope of redemption is restricted till publication of sale notice. But the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and Hon’ble Telangana High Court judgment \regarding 30 days gap between sale notice and publication of sale notice is not the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir Llp vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the interpretation of Section 13(8) regarding right of redemption till publication of sale notice. In the judgment in SA/151/2021 dated 26/09/2023 there is no mistake or error on the face of record. Judgment may be wrong but same cannot be reviewed. It may be challenged in appeal. Neither party has relied on the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Celir Llp vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. at the time of hearing of SA/151/2021. As the scope of review is very limited this MA/27/2023 is not maintainable. It is ordered as follows: i) MA/27/2023 is dismissed on contest as it is not maintainable against the Respondent Bank. (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer