HSBC BANK LTD Vs. HITESH CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Application has been filed by the HSBC Bank on the ground that after delivery of the order on 13/2/2024 they have acquired certain more information, which, according to them, had not been disclosed by the complainant. They have further stated about the status of the title deeds that were deposited to urge that there was no correspondence made by the father of the complainant about the original title documents and also no disclosure was made about the gift deed made by the father in respect of the Green Park property. This has been described as a factor to prove that there was no loss suffered by the father of the complainant or the complainant as the property was available as valuable security. In sum and substance, since there was no loss suffered, to claim compensation without any evidence about the valuation of the property has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, review of the order dtd. 13/2/2024 has been sought. It is evident that this entire argument which has been raised is in respect of certain information collected after the delivery of the order. Such a course is not permissible in order to raise a ground of error apparent on the face of the record and as a matter of fact the Bank is seeking practically a rehearing of the matter.

(2.) The aforesaid attempt is contrary to law for which reference may be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 185 wherein the Apex Court in para 15 of the judgment has observed, as under:

(3.) The Review Application is misconceived and is accordingly rejected. IA No. 4201 of 2024 filed by the applicant seeking stay also stands disposed of.