Karnataka HC Dismisses Silktex Review, Says Alleged ₹2.75-Crore SBI Payments Need Account Verification

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner established an apparent error warranting review of the calculation of the balance auction proceeds, including its claim for the additional ₹2,75,75,003 and interest

The court held

The Court dismissed the review petition, finding no new material or patent error warranting review.

It also directed

The order dated 18 November 2025 remained unaltered, with the balance of ₹6,81,68,280 subject to permissible deductions contemplated in that order.

The parties’ permissible contentions in the pending writ appeal were left open.

01Facts

The petitioner sought review of the order dated 18 November 2025 in W.P. No. 12507/2021.

¶ 2–3

It challenged the calculation of ₹6,81,68,280 as the balance of auction proceeds, contending that the Bank’s dues were ₹8,99,06,723, including an additional ₹2,75,75,003 allegedly paid on its behalf.

¶ 2–3

The Bank had also filed a writ appeal against the original order.

¶ 33

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner established an apparent error warranting review of the calculation of the balance auction proceeds, including its claim for the additional ₹2,75,75,003 and interest

¶ 8–13

ii.2. Whether the statement that the petitioner had given up its claim concerning missing inventories disclosed an apparent error on the face of the record

¶ 14–21

iii.3. Whether the pending writ appeal affected the maintainability or scope of the review petition

¶ 33–35

03Law Applied

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permit review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence unavailable despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

¶ 22–24

Review is not appellate jurisdiction: it corrects manifest errors and cannot be used to reconsider factual findings, substitute a different view, or enlarge the relief pursued in the original proceedings.

¶ 25–27, 32

Under Order XLVII Rule 1(2), a party may not seek review to the extent that, as a respondent in another party’s appeal, it can present the same case before the appellate court.

¶ 34

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 114

04Reasoning

The Court found no arithmetic error: deducting the admitted OTS dues of ₹6,23,31,720 from the auction proceeds of ₹13,05,00,000 produced ₹6,81,68,280.

¶ 5–6

Whether the additional ₹2,75,75,003 was actually paid by the Bank, and whether it was an allowable adjustment, required examination of payment records and accounts; it therefore did not establish an error apparent in review.

¶ 7–13, 28–29

On inventories, the original order recorded that counsel had confined the relief to adjustment of the OTS amount and return of the balance.

¶ 14–21

The petitioner produced no contemporaneous material from the original proceedings showing that a separate compensation claim had been pressed and inadvertently overlooked.

¶ 14–21, 30–32

The Court left permissible contentions in the pending writ appeal open, subject to procedural requirements.

¶ 34–35