Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, TEJAS KARIA, JJ
SUNIL GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for review must show apparent error. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. scope of review is limited to evident errors. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. property issues tied to partnership law. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. review cannot be a tool for rearguing cases. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. review petition dismissed for lack of grounds. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J CM APPL. 69366/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 69367/2025 (172 days delay in filing Review Petition)
3. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking condonation of delay of 172 days in filing the Review Petition.
4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 556/2025
6. The present Review Petition has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC seeking review of the Judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11524/2019 (“Judgment”) on the following grounds:
6.1 There are errors apparent on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
