Madras HC Rejects Man’s Review Over Claims Of Missing Or Damaged Bank-Held Goods, Says Signed Inventory Counted As Handover

In an earlier writ petition, the Court rejected the petitioner’s claim for damages relating to his articles and directed that he be allowed to collect them from the bank’s rented premises against payment of rent, with an inventory to be prepared

The petitioner and his counsel appeared at the bank on 15 October 2025, and an inventory was prepared and signed by them

In a subsequent writ petition, the petitioner sought compensation for damaged goods and permission to occupy the second floor of the house; that petition was dismissed on the basis that the issues had already been considered and the earlier order had attained finality

The petitioner then sought review, contending that some articles were damaged or missing, that the bank had not signed the inventory, and that he had not taken the articles back

Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confine review to specified grounds; review is not an appeal or an opportunity to rehear a matter or substitute one view for another. It is available to correct a qualifying error or prevent a miscarriage of justice, and must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law.

The Court relied on Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, which restated these limits

The Court also treated the earlier order’s determination as final and referred to the bar of res judicata applied in dismissing the subsequent writ petition

The Court held that the petitioner’s grounds did not fall within the narrow scope of review. In light of the prior direction to collect the articles, the petitioner’s appearance and signature on the inventory were sufficient for him to take possession; the bank was not required to deliver the articles to his residence or another location. The Court therefore treated the articles as handed over for this purpose, notwithstanding the petitioner’s assertion that he had not physically removed them

It further held that raising these fresh matters in review was impermissible, particularly after the subsequent writ petition had been dismissed and the earlier order had attained finality

It recorded the bank’s submission that the petitioner remained at liberty to collect the articles in accordance with the prepared inventory