Skip to main content

Revisional jurisdiction can only be invoked when allowing the application will finally terminate the proceeding: Rajasthan HC


Credits: The Wire

By - Hiranmayi Gowravajhula*

The Rajasthan High Court bench at Jaipur in a review petition regarding a loan fraud involving 8 banks held that the court's revisional authority can only be invoked when granting the application will result in the proceeding’s definitive end.

The revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Commercial Court wherein the application filed by IDFC First Bank under Order VII, Rule 11 (rejection of suit barred by limitation) read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (Statutory recognition of inherent powers of courts) and Sections 8 and 5 (extent of judicial intervention) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed on the ground that the commercial court had no jurisdiction to decide the case and is barred by law. 

This case initially arose when Dr. Aruna Bamniya secured a loan from 7 banks worth Rs. 98,34,413/- and the loan amount credited to her account was fraudulently transferred to Kishan Hospital and Research Centre. Consequently, Dr. Aruna Bamniya agreed to invoke the Arbitration clause to resolve the matter. However, IDFC First Bank filed the above-mentioned application to recover the personal loan amount from her worth Rs. 10,42,000/-. 

Also Read - Preventive detention only to prevent public disorder; Cannot be invoked over apprehension of breach of law and order: Supreme Court.

“The question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order may be categorized an order passed under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (appealable orders) or it is an order passed under Order VII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. It has also to be looked into whether allowing the application under Order VII, Rule 11 Code Of Civil Procedure will terminate the proceedings of the suit.” said the court considering the peculiarity of the facts of the case. 

The High Court further stated that the revisional authority can be exercised only when granting the application will result in the definitive termination of the process. “…allowing the application of one of the defendants filed under Order VII, Rule 11 Code Of Civil Procedure will not terminate the suit filed by the plaintiff against all the seven defendant – banks.” the court said. Considering that there was an arbitrator already appointed, the court dismissed the application on the ground that it is barred by law. 

Also Read - Rejection of application u/s 13-A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act due to delay in submission of documents would be a pedantic and purposeless approach: Delhi High Court.

With regard to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (revisional jurisdiction of high courts), the court stated that there shall be no revocation of the order of the commercial court. “…the impugned order is certainly an interlocutory order passed by the Commercial Court, against which, there is bar on the Court to entertain any civil revision.” the bench held.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Hiranmayi Gowravajhula is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more