M/S SILKTEX LIMITED vs STATE BANK OF INDIA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
REVIEW PETITION NO. 109 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
M/S SILKTEX LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT- NO.34,II FLOOR,
KRISHNA REDDY COLONY
DOMLUR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560071
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.SAKET CHURIWALA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKESH B BHATT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CORPORATE CENTER
STATE BANK BHAVAN
MADAM CAMA ROAD
NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI 400021
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH
ND
2 FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING,
LHO CAMPUS, NO. 65, ST. MARKS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND CLO-5
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
ND
2 FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING,
LHO CAMPUS,
NO. 65, ST. MARKS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM., ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 18.11.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.1257/2021 BY THIS HON’BLE
COURT AND ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. IA-1/2026 is filed to condone the delay. For the
reasons stated therein, IA-1/2026 is allowed. Delay
condoned.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Review the Order dated 18.11.2025 passed in WP No.
12507/2021 by this Hon'ble court in sofar as
i) Holding that the Respondent is liable to pay amount
received in auction sale over and above
Rs.6,81,68,280/- and this Hon'ble court be pleased to
Hold and direct the respondent-Bank to make payment
of the excess amount received over and above the due
amount of Rs. 8,99,06,723/- (Rs.6,23,31,720/- + Rs.
2,75,75,003) to the Petitioner along with interest from
the date of receipt of the entire sale consideration from
the auction purchaser by the Bank.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
ii) Review the order dated 18.11.2025 in sofar as
holding at para 20.3 "that the aspect of missing
inventories having been given up by the Petitioner, no
order in respect thereto is required to be made." And
clarify that the Petitioner had not given up his claim
regarding missing inventories and order Respondent
Bank to compensate Petitioner for the same.
b) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble court deems fit
in the interest of Justice and Equity.
3. The grounds on which review of the order dated
18.11.2025 is sought are twofold. Firstly, it is
contended that the amount of ₹6,81,68,280/-
referred to in the operative portion of the order is not
correctly determined and that the respondent-Bank
is liable to pay the excess amount realised in the
auction after accounting for the petitioner's dues of
₹8,99,06,723/-. Secondly, it is contended that the
observation made in paragraph 20.3 of the order that
the petitioner had given up the claim relating to
missing inventories is factually incorrect.
4. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, it is
necessary to notice the basis on which the amount of
₹6,81,68,280/- was arrived at in the order under
review.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
5. The auction consideration received by the
respondent-Bank was ₹13,05,00,000/-. The admitted
dues of the petitioner, as reflected in the One Time
Settlement (OTS) submitted by the petitioner, were
₹6,23,31,720/-. Upon deducting the said admitted
dues from the auction sale consideration of
₹13,05,00,000/-, the balance amount works out to
₹6,81,68,280/-.
6. Thus, the calculation arrived at by this Court in the
order under review is arithmetically correct, as
demonstrated below:
Auction sale consideration: ₹13,05,00,000/-
Less: Admitted dues under OTS: ₹6,23,31,720/-
Balance: ₹6,81,68,280/-
7. It is, however, to be noticed that the aforesaid
amount would be subject to deduction of such
amounts as may have been paid by the respondent-
Bank on behalf of the petitioner to other authorities
in relation to the subject property or the liabilities of
the petitioner. The order under review has already
taken note of the said aspect. Consequently, the
amount of ₹6,81,68,280/- represents the excess
amount calculated on the basis of the auction
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
consideration and the admitted OTS dues, subject to
such permissible adjustments.
8. The petitioner, by referring to the figure of
₹8,99,06,723/- (₹6,23,31,720/- + ₹2,75,75,003/-),
seeks to have the additional amount of
₹2,75,75,003/- also taken into consideration while
determining the balance amount payable by the
respondent-Bank.
9. The effect of such an adjustment, if the additional
amount is established to have actually been paid by
the respondent-Bank on behalf of the petitioner and
is otherwise permissible under the earlier order,
would be a reduction in the net balance payable.
However, the question whether the entire amount of
₹2,75,75,003/- was in fact paid by the respondent-
Bank, the authorities to whom such payment was
made and whether the same is liable to be adjusted
against the auction proceeds would require
verification of the relevant accounts and payment
records.
10. The order under review has already provided for
deduction of amounts actually paid by the
respondent-Bank on behalf of the petitioner to other
authorities. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
that the entire amount of ₹6,81,68,280/- is payable
without accounting for such permissible adjustments.
Equally, the additional amount now sought to be
brought into the calculation cannot be treated as an
admitted liability merely because the petitioner has
included the same in the figure of ₹8,99,06,723/-.
11. The contention now sought to be advanced would,
therefore, require reconsideration of the financial
calculations, the nature of the payments allegedly
made by the respondent-Bank and the amounts
liable to be adjusted. The same cannot be
undertaken in exercise of review jurisdiction,
particularly when the earlier order has already
contemplated such permissible deductions.
12. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioner seeks
payment of interest from the date on which the
entire sale consideration was received by the
respondent-Bank from the auction purchaser. Such a
direction would constitute an additional substantive
relief requiring adjudication of the petitioner's
entitlement to interest, the period for which interest
would be payable and the liability of the respondent-
Bank in that regard. The petitioner has not
demonstrated any apparent error in the order under
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
review which would warrant introduction of such a
direction in review proceedings.
13. The petitioner has, therefore, not demonstrated any
arithmetical mistake or patent error in the calculation
undertaken by this Court. The contention regarding
the additional amount of ₹2,75,75,003/- concerns
the nature and extent of permissible adjustments
and cannot, without examination of the underlying
payment records, be treated as an error apparent on
the face of the record.
14. Insofar as the second contention regarding missing
inventories is concerned, this Court has categorically
recorded in paragraph 19.1 of the order under review
that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
did not press for setting aside the auction sale and
would only press for adjustment of the OTS amount
and return of the balance amount.
15. The relevant consideration in the original writ petition
was, therefore, confined to the manner in which the
auction sale proceeds were to be adjusted towards
the admitted liabilities of the petitioner and whether
the excess amount was required to be returned by
the respondent-Bank.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
16. The petitioner now contends that, though the
challenge to the auction sale itself was not pressed,
the claim relating to missing inventories had not
been given up. However, the question relating to
missing inventories cannot be considered in isolation
from the reliefs which were ultimately pressed in the
original writ proceedings.
17. The grievance regarding missing inventories is
founded on the allegation that certain machinery and
other articles belonging to the petitioner were not
included in the sale or stock auction. When the
petitioner confined the relief in the original writ
proceedings to adjustment of the OTS amount and
refund of the balance sale consideration, the
question of granting any separate relief in respect of
the alleged missing inventories was not pursued for
adjudication in the manner now sought to be urged.
18. It is in that context that this Court, in paragraph 20.3
of the order under review, recorded that the issue
relating to missing inventories had been given up
and that no separate order in that regard was
required to be passed.
19. The petitioner cannot, in the present review
proceedings, seek to reopen the submissions made
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
and the reliefs pressed during the original writ
proceedings by contending that a different
interpretation ought to have been placed upon the
submissions recorded by this Court.
20. If the petitioner intended to pursue an independent
claim for compensation in respect of the alleged
missing inventories, the same ought to have been
specifically pressed and urged during the original
proceedings. A review petition cannot be used to
enlarge the scope of the reliefs which were pressed
and considered in the original writ petition.
21. Further, the petitioner has not placed any
contemporaneous material forming part of the
original writ proceedings to demonstrate that a
separate claim for compensation towards missing
inventories was specifically pressed and that this
Court, by inadvertence, failed to consider the same.
A mere assertion in the review petition that such
claim had not been given up would not, by itself,
establish an error apparent on the face of the record.
22. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the
provision governing the scope of review jurisdiction.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
23. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, reads as follows:
"1. Application for review of judgment.—
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but
from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order made, or on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a
review of the decree passed or order made against him, may
apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the
decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency
of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of
such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or
when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court
the case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law
on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior
Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of
such judgment."
24. A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that the
power of review can be exercised on the discovery of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
new and important matter or evidence which, despite
due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the
applicant or could not be produced when the order
was made, or on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason.
25. The jurisdiction of review is not one of appellate
jurisdiction. It is intended to correct errors which are
apparent from the record and not to provide an
opportunity to a party to seek reconsideration of the
conclusions already arrived at by the Court.
26. Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error
which is manifest on the face of the record. An error
which requires detailed examination of the material,
reconsideration of the factual findings or a process of
reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on
the face of the record.
27. The power of review cannot be exercised to
substitute a different view for the one already taken
by the Court. A review petition cannot be converted
into an appeal in disguise.
28. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
any patent error in the computation of
₹6,81,68,280/-. The said amount has been arrived at
by deducting the admitted OTS dues of
₹6,23,31,720/- from the auction consideration of
₹13,05,00,000/-. The petitioner's attempt to
substitute a different figure of ₹8,99,06,723/- would
require verification of the additional amount of
₹2,75,75,003/- and reconsideration of the financial
adjustments. Such an exercise would fall outside the
limited scope of review jurisdiction.
29. It is made clear that the amount of ₹6,81,68,280/-
was arrived at as the gross balance after deduction
of the admitted OTS dues and remains subject to the
permissible deductions contemplated in the order
under review. The respondent-Bank would be
entitled to account for only those amounts which are
established to have actually been paid on behalf of
the petitioner and which are permissible adjustments
under the earlier order. The present review
proceedings do not warrant a fresh adjudication of
such disputed accounts.
30. Similarly, insofar as the alleged missing inventories
are concerned, the order under review has recorded
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
the limited relief which was ultimately pressed. The
petitioner has not demonstrated, by reference to any
contemporaneous material forming part of the
original record, that the observation made in
paragraph 20.3 suffers from an apparent error
requiring correction in review jurisdiction.
31. The contention now raised would essentially require
reconsideration of the submissions and the scope of
the reliefs pursued in the original writ proceedings.
Such reconsideration cannot be undertaken in a
review petition.
32. The petitioner cannot seek, by way of review, an
enlargement of the reliefs which were not pursued
for adjudication in the original writ proceedings. This
Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of
any independent remedy, if otherwise available to
the petitioner in law, in respect of the alleged
missing inventories.
33. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the
respondent-Bank has preferred a writ appeal against
the order dated 18.11.2025.
34. In this regard, sub-rule (2) of Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the CPC is also relevant. The provision contemplates
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
that, where an appeal has been preferred by another
party, a review by a party who is the respondent in
such appeal is not maintainable to the extent that
the same case can be presented before the Appellate
Court. Consequently, insofar as the contentions now
raised by the petitioner can be urged in the pending
writ appeal, the same would be subject to the
limitation prescribed under the said provision.
35. It would be open to the petitioner to urge all
permissible contentions in the pending writ appeal,
subject to the applicable procedural requirements.
36. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that neither of the two grounds
urged by the petitioner falls within the scope of Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. No new and important
material has been brought on record, nor has any
patent error apparent on the face of the record been
demonstrated. The petitioner is, in substance,
seeking reconsideration of the conclusions already
arrived at in the order under review.
37. The review jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely
because the petitioner seeks a different computation
of the amount payable or a different appreciation of
the submissions made in the original writ
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60013
RP No. 109 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010165862026
proceedings. Such grounds, if permissible, are
matters to be urged before the Appellate Court and
do not constitute grounds for review.
38. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for allowing
the review petition, hence this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
(i) The review petition is dismissed.
(ii) The order dated 18.11.2025 passed in W.P.
No.12507/2021 remains unaltered.
(iii) All permissible contentions of the parties in the
pending writ appeal are kept open to be urged
in accordance with law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69