Calcutta HC Rejects Creditor’s Review Bid For Interest Before, During And After Suit, Citing Four-Week Payment Window

In brief

The question

Whether the impugned judgment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, particularly as to interest for the pre-suit, pendente lite and post-decree periods.

The court held

The Court condoned the 37-day delay and allowed the delay-condonation application.

It also directed

It found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review proceeding without costs.

01Facts

The review applicant sought review of a judgment and decree dated 3 July 2025, which quantified the amount payable but allowed the defendant four weeks to pay without interest; interest would accrue if payment was not made within that period.

¶ 1, 12–13

The applicant sought interest for the pre-suit, pendente lite and post-decree periods, contending that its omission was an error.

¶ 8–9

The applicant acknowledged that the decretal amount had been tendered within the four-week period.

¶ 10

The Court first condoned the reported 37-day delay in filing the review application.

¶ 3–6

02Issues

i.Whether the impugned judgment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, particularly as to interest for the pre-suit, pendente lite and post-decree periods.

¶ 8–14

ii.Whether the authorities relied upon by the applicant supported review on the facts of this case.

¶ 15–16

03Law Applied

Review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to obtain reappreciation of the evidence or reconsideration of a discretionary decision; review requires an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶ 11 · ¶ 14

The Court considered B. N. Nobbis and Co. v. Kamales Mallik, cited as 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 7834, where review was allowed to correct the forum for a commercial dispute, and Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India, cited as (2009) 7 SCC 372, on which the applicant relied in support of an interest claim.

¶ 8–9, 15–16

The Court held that neither authority warranted review in the circumstances before it.

¶ 15–16

04Reasoning

The impugned judgment gave elaborate reasons for the quantified decree and did not wholly deny interest: it allowed four weeks for payment without interest and provided for interest if the defendant failed to pay within that period.

¶ 12–13

Since the applicant acknowledged timely tender of the decretal amount, the Court found no apparent error in the treatment of interest.

¶ 10–14

The applicant’s request would require reconsideration of the Bench’s decision and could not be pursued through review.

¶ 10–14

The cited decisions did not alter that conclusion: B. N. Nobbis concerned correction of the forum, while Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi was held inapplicable on the facts.

¶ 15–16