Delhi High Court
Hemant Tyagi vs Uco Bank & Ors. on 13 November, 2018
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th November, 2018
CM No. 46618/2018, Review Petitioner.409/2018 in
+ W.P.(C) 8500/2016
HEMANT TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
UCO BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Adv. for
Review Petitioner-UCO Bank
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T(ORAL)
Review Petition 409/2018
1. This petition seeks review of the judgment dated 27th
September, 2018, passed by me in WP(C) 8500/2016. Mr. Sarfaraz
Khan appearing for the review petitioner submits only two grounds, to
justify his prayer for review, which, according to him, have not been
considered by this Court while passing the judgment under review.
The first is that the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation.
The second is that no writ petition would lie for a relief such as that
which was claimed by the petitioner and granted by this Court.
2. On the first point, learned counsel candidly accepts that there is
no period of limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition, but states
that the petitioner is required to approach the Court within a
reasonable period. I do not see how this can be a ground to seek
review of the impugned judgment passed by this Court.
3. On the second aspect, i.e. regarding maintainability of the writ
petition, learned counsel would submit that a writ petition, merely
seeking refund of the bond money, would not lie. He has placed
reliance, in this regard, on Sh. Santanu Sur v. Gail India Limited,
2014 (145) DRJ 109.
4. A bare reading of the said judgment, on which the learned
counsel seek to rely, makes it clear that it recognizes that a writ
petition can in fact, be entertained for refund of money. In fact, Mr.
Khan himself drew my attention to clause (iii) in para 12 of the
judgment, which reads thus :
"(iii) A petition for issue of writ of mandamus will not
normally be entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a
refund of money, to the return of which the petitioner claims a
right. The aggrieved party seeking refund has to approach the
Civil Court for claiming the amount, though the High Courts
have the power to pass appropriate orders in the exercise of
powers conferred under Article 226 for payment of money;"
(Emphasis supplied)
5. A bare reading of the clause on which learned counsel relies
indicates that there is no bar to a writ Court entertaining a claim for
refund of money.
6. On the attention of learned counsel being drawn to this aspect,
he seeks to fall back on the submission that his absence, on the date of
hearing, was owing to inadvertent circumstances.
7. Be that as it may, in my view, no case of exercise of review
jurisdiction by this Court, is made out in the present case. The review
petition is accordingly dismissed.
CM No. 46618/2018 (stay)
8. This is an application for stay, filed in the Review Petition. It is
trite that no interim orders can be prayed for, in a review petition. In
any case, as the review petition itself stands dismissed, this application
does not survive and is disposed of as such.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2018/kr
