PRAKASH KUMAR THAKER vs THE JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING AND PROCUREMENT FEDERATION LIMITED

OCD-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE

RVWO/35/2025
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025

PRAKASH KUMAR THAKER
-VS-
THE JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING AND
PROCUREMENT FEDERATION LIMITED


BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
-AND-
The Hon’ble JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY


For the Review Applicant : Mr. Suvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Dey, Adv.


HEARD ON : 12.11.2026

DELIVERED ON : 12.11.2026

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-


1. Review is directed against judgment and decree dated July 3,
2025 passed in AD-COM/5/2024 with CS/634/2001 IA No. GA-
COM/3/2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench.
2. Review proceeding is specially assigned to this Bench.
3. GA-COM/1/2025 is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the memorandum of review.

4. The department reports a delay of 37 days in preferring the
memorandum of review.

2

5. Considering the averments made in the petition seeking
condonation of delay and for the ends of justice we deem it
appropriate to condone the delay.
6. In such circumstances, delay in making and filing the
memorandum of review is condoned. IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 is
allowed.
7. None appears for the respondent despite service. Respondent
though was represented on the previous date.
8. Learned advocate appearing for the review applicant draws the
attention of the Court to the paragraph 104 of the impugned
judgment and decree. He submits that, the Court, did not award
interest for the period prior to the institution of the suit, during
the pendency of the suit and post the decree. He relies upon
2026 SCC OnLine Cal 7834 (B. N. Nobbis and Co & Ors. -vs-
Kamales Mallik & Ors.) in support of the proposition, that, the
review is maintainable.
9. Relying upon (2009) 7 SCC 372 (Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi &
Ors. -vs- Union of India & Anr.) , learned advocate appearing
for the review applicant submits that, interest should be
awarded with regard to the pre-institution, pendency period as
also post the decree. He submits that, the Co-ordinate Bench
erred in not awarding any interest.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the review applicant in his
usual fairness submits that, decretal amount in terms of
paragraph 104 of the judgment and decree under review was

3

tendered by the judgment debtor to the review applicant within
a period of four weeks as specified therein.
11. Review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. What the
review applicant seeks is reappreciation of the evidence to arrive
at a finding as to whether or not the Co-ordinate Bench was
correct in passing the decree with regard to the amount
specified therein as also not awarding interest for the period of
pre-institution of the suit, during the pendency of the suit as
also the post the decree.
12. We find from the records that the judgment and decree under
review contains elaborate reasons in arriving at the finding
which are recorded in paragraph 104 thereof. The Co-ordinate
Bench in its discretion proceeded to pass a decree for a
quantified amount. It proceeded to permit the defendant in the
suit to pay the decretal amount within a period of four weeks,
failing which, interest was to commence.
13. It is not the case that the Co-ordinate Bench did not award
interest at all. What the Co-ordinate Bench did was allowed the
defendant a period of time to pay the decretal amount without
interest. Failure to pay the decretal amount within the period
specified, attracted interest at the rate awarded.
14. There is no error apparent on the face of the record for the
Court to undertake review.
15. In B. N. Nobbis and Co & Ors. (Supra) on review, the Co-
ordinate Bench found that the disputes involved were

4

commercial disputes within the meaning of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 and, therefore, reviewed a portion of the
judgment under review therein to direct the matter to be placed
in the Commercial Division. Such is not the case here.
16. The ratio laid down in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors.
(Supra) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Here, as noted above, there are elaborate
discussions as to the arrival of the finding recorded in
paragraph 104 of the judgment and decree under review.
17. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present review
proceeding.
18. RVWO/35/2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.


(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
19. I agree.

(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)




sp3