Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1578 - HC - Indian LawsReview application - whether the amendment, on the basis of which the review petition has been taken out, if considered, might have made any difference in the order under review and/or is relevant to the conclusion as reached in the said order? - Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the SARFAESI proceeding reached culmination and the award passed therein is at the stage of execution. The securities for the loan-in-question are already available for the bank to execute the award granted by the Tribunal - In the event the provision of issuance of LOC are being permitted to be used rampantly as a substitute of execution proceedings, the personal liberty of Indian citizens could potentially be jeopardized and a flood-gate will be opened, giving the government and other public authorities a handle to wreck vengeance on the citizens of India by using the provisions of the office memorandum regarding issuance of LOC to hinder the personal liberty of all citizens merely on the ground of commercial loans being defaulted. Since the bank has a final award in its favour and has already taken recourse to an execution proceeding, it ought to restrict its implementation of the award of such execution proceeding, which is the due process provided by law, but cannot take recourse to the higher remedy of issuance of an LOC. Even if the amendment annexed to the review petition is taken into consideration or was taken into consideration while passing the order under review, the same would not make a difference in the ratio of the order under review inasmuch as no exceptional case or any adverse effect on the economic interests of India as a whole have been made out either in the review petition or in the original request for issuance of LOC issued by the bank - even if the present amendment was placed before the court while passing the order under review, it would not have any special relevance to the conclusion reached in such order and would not be a relevant factor in passing such order. Since the scope of review is limited, there cannot be any reason why the said limited scope should be exercised in the present case - As far as the contempt application is concerned, the issuance of a rule of contempt is resorted to any extreme cases only and, in the present case, learned counsel for the immigration authorities has given sufficient explanation as to why the order under review could not be complied with by the immigration authorities - this Court desists itself from taking resort to the extreme measure of issuance of rule of contempt and CPAN 85 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of. Application disposed off.
|