Delhi High Court
Punjab National Bank vs Satinder Kapur And Ors on 27 November, 2015
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:27.11.2015
+ REV. PET No. 245/2013 in W.P. (C) No.8432/2011
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Jagdeep Kishore, Adv.
Versus
SATINDER KAPUR AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajeev Mehra, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Lakshay Sawhney,
Mr.Manish Gandhi, Mr. Manish
Shersia and Ms. Shruti Aggarwal,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the
order dated 20.03.2013. The grounds of review are detailed in the
review petition. It is stated that the liability of respondent No. 1
(Satender Kapur) was purely personal to him; it could not have formed a
part of the overall settlement as the company (Indian Magnetic Limited)
had incurred no liability at any stage. There was no proposal made by
respondent No. 1 or the Company to include the liability of respondent
No. 1 under the Buy Back Agreement in the settlement and nor was such
a proposal considered at any stage. This Court has wrongly been guided
by the observations made in the O.A. and the T.A. which were pending
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT); it was respondent No. 1
who had initiated the compromise proposal and the liability of
respondent No. 1 under the Buy Back Agreement, at the cost of
repetition, had no connection with the liability of Indian Magnetic
Limited.
2 Arguments have been addressed in detail by the learned senior
counsel on this aspect.
3 Needless to state that the non-applicant/counsel appearing for
respondent No. 1 has refuted these submissions. It is pointed out that the
impugned order does not call for any interference; parameters of review
are not satisfied. There is no error apparent on the face of the record.
4 Record shows that respondent No. 1 was the Director of the
company M/s Indian Magnetic Limited. On 13.06.1992, he had entered
into a Buy Back Agreement with the PNB Capital Services Limited. In
1996, the Company (Indian Magnetic Limited) had been granted a loan;
it had three loan accounts. Respondent No. 1 stood guarantee to the said
loan. The Company had defaulted in its repayment schedule.
5 The petitioner Bank was constrained to file O.A. No.110/1996.
Meanwhile, PNB Capital Services Limited filed a suit for specific
performance against respondent No. 1 for not adhering to the Buy Back
Agreement. This suit was subsequently transferred to the DRT and was
registered as T.A. No.03/2005. In the proceedings before the DRT, the
petitioner Bank had filed a reply. Their stand was that no piecemeal
adjudication can take place between the O.A. and the T.A. and both the
matters should be tried by the DRT.
6 The correspondences exchanged between the parties i.e. between
the Bank and respondent No. 1 and especially the letters dated
24.09.2007, 29.01.2008 and 31.01.2008 are relevant. These letters have
been extracted in the order which is the subject matter of review. On
16.05.2008, the petitioner Bank had accepted that on payment of the full
compromise amount, the Bank would inform the concerned Court that it
is not interested in pursuing the criminal complaint pending against it.
On 08.04.2009, the Bank issued a „No Due Certificate‟ pursuant to
which an order had been passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal (DRAT) on 28.10.2010 wherein the stand of the petitioner
Bank that the matter has been settled was noted.
7 On 04.11.2010, the DRAT again passed an order noting that since
the matter had been settled between the parties, the T.A. also stands
disposed of. The photocopy of the certificate dated 08.04.2009 issued by
the PNB to respondent No. 1 in which it had been stated that respondent
No. 1 had entered into an OTS for Rs.125 lacs in the account of Indian
Magnetic Limited and the entire OTS amount stands deposited was
taken on record. This T.A. was accordingly withdrawn on 22.11.2010.
8 The Bank appeared not satisfied with these proceedings. On
02.09.2011, on a clarification application filed by the Bank, the DRAT
noted the submission of the Bank that there were two accounts and the
settlement was only qua one account but no document having been filed
by the Bank to substantiate this submission that the OTS was in relation
to only one account, the application filed by the petitioner Bank for
clarification stood dismissed by the DRAT. A second review petition
also stood dismissed.
9 The submissions now made before this Court are nothing but a re-
agitation of the same issue which already stands settled. Even otherwise
the parameters for review of an order are permitted only if the pre-
conditions contained in the statutory provisions i.e. in terms of Order
XLVII which has to be read along with Section 114 of the CPC are
satisfied. Unless and until, there is an error apparent on the face of the
record or there is a discovery of new and important fact which after
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party at
the time when the order was passed or for any sufficient reason and
which "sufficient reason" has to be read ejusdem generis in terms of
earlier clauses of Order XLVII, a review is not permitted; the power of
review not being an inherent power; but a creature of the statute.
10 In this background, no ground is made out to entertain the present
petition. It is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
NOVEMBER 27, 2015/A
