$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 + LPA 1175/2024 RAKESH KUMAR SAINI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Mr.

Rishabh Kumar & Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates.

versus THE POWER FINANCE CORPERATION LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harish Pandey & Mr. Anshuman Tiwari, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral REVIEW PET. 404/2025

1. The present Review Petition has been filed by the Appellant under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for review of the order dated 02.12.2024 (“Order”) passed by the learned Coordinate Bench dismissing LPA No. 1175/2024 (“LPA”) challenging order dated 07.11.2024 (“Impugned Order”) passed in W.P.(C) 12196/2024 (“Writ Petition”) filed by the Appellant. As the said bench is not available, this Review Petition is being considered by this Bench.

2. The Appellant had preferred the Writ Petition praying for quashing the action of the Respondent refusing to cancel the Bonds issued to the Appellant vide letter dated 16.07.2024 and non-refund of the amount thereof. Further, the Appellant had sought direction to cancel the Bonds allotted to the Appellant vide letter dated 19.06.2024.

3. Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition by holding that the relief sought in the Writ Petition could not be granted as once the Bonds were issued to the Appellant, the rights and obligations were governed by the specific terms of the Bonds and neither party can alter the same unilaterally. Further, it was held by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order that the Appellant’s claim for cancellation of the Bonds was based on an alleged mistake of fact and reliance on misguided financial advice with regard to exemption from the Capital Gains Tax, which did not create any enforceable right that could be adjudicated under the Writ Jurisdiction.

4. Vide the Order passed in the LPA, the learned Coordinate Bench dismissed the LPA by holding that the right to amend or alter the terms of the Bond was subject to stipulation of the same being acceded to by 3/4^th of the Bond Holders and it would be impermissible for the Court under the Writ Jurisdiction to modify or alter the terms and conditions of the Bond.

5. The Appellant has preferred the present Review Petition on the ground that there are errors apparent on the face of the record that have crept in the Order under review as this Court did not notice that the cancellation of the Bonds was being sought by the Appellant on account of not needing to avail the Capital Gains Tax exemption from the Bond and, therefore, in the absence of any benefit availed by the Appellant, the Respondent was not entitled to refuse the cancellation on the ground that there was no provision for premature redemption of the Bonds.

6. The Appellant has further contended that while passing the Order, this Court did not notice that there was no legal prohibition / bar against the Respondent for cancellation of the Bonds at the initial stage itself, when neither any interest had accrued and payable to the investors nor the Appellant had availed the benefit of exemption from the Capital Gains Tax.

7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in Major Amandeep Singh v. University of Delhi & Anr. 2015:DHC:6193 to submit that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the High Court is empowered to grant relief even if it does not find any right in the petitioner thereto, but finds the grant of the relief being necessary to serve the ends of justice in the particular facts and circumstances.

8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and considered the grounds raised in the present Review Petition.

9. At the outset, we are of the view that the Appellant has attempted to revisit and reargue the matter under the prete