The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed that review jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to clear errors apparent on the face of record, declining to entertain review on the merits of the underlying auction process or alleged statutory violations under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. This decision does not overrule or modify existing precedent, and stands as binding authority within the state for review petitions challenging orders relating to bank auction sales under SARFAESI.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVP/147/2025 of SHREEMANTHULA KUMARASWAMY Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK |
| CNR | CGHC010204622025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Type of Law | Banking Law / Civil Procedure / SARFAESI |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that review jurisdiction is narrowly confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of record, not for reappreciating evidence or considering issues already decided. Allegations of non-compliance with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, or claims that proper notice was not given prior to auction, do not by themselves constitute ‘error apparent on the face of record’ to justify review. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged an auction sale and the accompanying sale deed conducted by Punjab National Bank, asserting statutory violations including non-compliance with Section 13(8) SARFAESI Act and lack of notice prior to taking possession. The review petition sought to revisit the High Court’s earlier order dated 01/05/2025 in WPC No. 2025/2025. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44967 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts with similar procedural facts and review petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review under Article 226 can be sought only for errors apparent on the record, not for detailed reconsideration of factual or statutory challenges already adjudicated.
- Clarifies that alleged violations of Section 13(8) SARFAESI Act alone do not meet the threshold for review unless demonstrable error is evident on the face of the previous order.
- Lawyers must present clear, self-evident errors for review petitions: mere disagreements with prior findings or procedural grievances are insufficient.
- The judgment serves as a caution against using review petitions as a substitute for appeal in SARFAESI matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the grounds urged by the petitioner for review, namely, alleged statutory violations in the bank’s auction procedure under the SARFAESI Act, particularly the failure to comply with Section 13(8).
- The court emphasized that review is only permissible where there is an error apparent on the face of the record; it is not an avenue for rehearing the case or rearguing settled issues.
- Upon review of the prior proceedings (WPC No. 2025/2025) and the petitioner’s submissions, the Court concluded there was no patent legal error or oversight justifying the exercise of review jurisdiction.
- Thus, it held that the review petition disclosed no valid ground, and accordingly dismissed it.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought review of prior order alleging that the auction and sale deed were illegal and void due to non-compliance with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.
- Claimed the District Magistrate’s order for possession was issued without proper notice, infringing the right of redemption.
- Requested declaration of the auction and sale deed as void on grounds of statutory violation.
Respondent (Punjab National Bank)
- No specific arguments from the respondents are stated in the judgment; information not available beyond presence of counsel.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged an auction sale and resultant sale deed conducted by Punjab National Bank, raising issues of statutory violations, particularly non-compliance with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and lack of notice prior to the order of possession passed by the District Magistrate. The review petition was filed against the High Court’s earlier order dated 01/05/2025 in WPC No. 2025/2025, seeking to set aside the auction process and related proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- Discussed Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, which pertains to the borrower’s right of redemption prior to the sale or transfer of secured assets.
- Interpreted the scope of review jurisdiction under Article 226 to be limited to errors apparent on the face of record.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on the scope of review jurisdiction is reaffirmed.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44967