Pals Alloys and Metal India Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs Allahabad Bank and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a review application seeking reconsideration of its judgment dated 23.12.2021 in CWP No.6402 of 2019. The earlier judgment had directed that, subject to the petitioners paying the entire outstanding dues with applicable interest, the Bank should close their loan account and restore possession of their residential property, while amounts deposited by respondents No.2 and 3 were to be refunded with interest at 7% per annum. In review, the applicant pointed out the merger of Allahabad Bank with Indian Bank and further contended that the amount of ₹3.12 crore deposited by him should carry a higher commercial rate of interest instead of 7%. The High Court noted that the claim for a higher rate of interest had not been advanced when the writ petition was originally heard.
Relying upon Collector of 24 Parganas and Others Vs Lalit Mohan Mullick & Others, 1988 Supp SCC 578, and Nehali Panjiyara and Others Vs Shyama Devi and Others, 2002 (1) SCC 578, the Court reiterated that a ground which was not raised when the original appeal or writ petition was heard on merits cannot subsequently be introduced for consideration in review proceedings. Since the review applicant was attempting to raise a new point which had not been argued when the matter was initially heard and decided, the High Court declined to entertain the review application and dismissed it without costs. The order was declared speaking/reasoned and reportable. The underlying order and the review proceedings also recorded the position concerning Allahabad Bank and Indian Bank; TaxGuru’s published RBI material records the amalgamation of Allahabad Bank with Indian Bank.
Cases Discussed
- Collector of 24 Parganas and Others Vs Lalit Mohan Mullick & Others, 1988 Supp SCC 578 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon by the High Court for the proposition that a ground which was not raised when the appeal or writ petition was heard on merits cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of a review application.
- Nehali Panjiyara and Others Vs Shyama Devi and Others, 2002 (1) SCC 578 (Supreme Court) — Followed as reiterating the principle that a point not urged when the original matter was heard and decided cannot subsequently be raised in review.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
This Review Application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dt. 23.12.2021 in CWP No.6402 of 2019.
The review applicant in the Review Application is Lakhwinder Singh- respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition.
While allowing the Writ Petition on 23.12.2021, the following directions had been issued:-
“ii) Subject to the petitioners paying the entire balance outstanding dues with applicable interest to the 1st respondent-Bank within four weeks from today, the 1st respondent-Bank shall close the loan account of the petitioners and restore possession of their residential property to them; No costs.
(iii) If not, this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed with costs of 25,000/- without reference to this Court;
(iv) In the event the petitioners comply with Clause (ii) above, the amount deposited by the respondents No.2 and 3 with the 1st respondent-Bank be refunded to them with interest rate @7% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till date of refund; and such refund shall be made within one week of the petitioners’ complying with Clause (ii) above.”
It is pointed out by the review-applicant that respondent No.2 in the RA i.e., respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition i.e the Allahabad Bank had been merged with the Indian Bank w.e.f. 15.02.2022, and after merger, all the branches of the Allahabad Bank are now named as Indian Bank and this fact had not been noticed at the time when the Writ Petition was allowed on 23.12.2021.
This fact was not disputed by the counsel for respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner or counsel for the respondent No.2.
The other contention raised in this Review Application is that this Court vide the said order dt. 23.12.2021 while refunding the amount deposited by the review applicant-respondent No.2, it had only granted interest @7% per annum on the amount of 3,12,00,000/- from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
Counsel for the review-applicant contends that there are decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts making the Banks pay higher rates of interest at commercial rate and this Court should have granted the same to the review applicant as well.
We may point out that when the Writ Petition was heard, no such contention has been advanced by the counsel for respondent No.2, applicant herein.
In the case of Collector of 24 Parganas and Others Vs Lalit Mohan Mullick & Others1, the Supreme Court held that a ground which had been not raised before the Court when the Appeal/Writ was heard on merits, could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of the Review Application. This was also reiterated in the case of Nehali Panjiyara and Others Vs Shyama Devi and Others2.
Having regard to the above settled legal position, we decline to entertain this Review Application since a point/argument which was not argued at the time when the matter was initially heard and decided is now sought to be raised in the Review Application.
Accordingly, this Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.
Notes:
1 1988 Supp SCC 578
2 2002 (1) SCC 578
