Review jurisdiction cannot reopen disputed SARFAESI priority issues; factual corrections alone do not justify interference.

Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a common judgment merely because certain factual particulars require correction, where those corrections do not affect the core reasoning or substantive rights. Disputed issues about prior attachment by the Income-tax Department, the alleged void nature of a mortgage under section 281, and priority of charge were treated as questions of fact and statutory remedy, not matters for writ review under Article 226. The court held that such disputes must be pursued before the DRT under the SARFAESI framework, with sections 17, 34 and 35 preserving the statutory forum and overriding effect. The review petitions were therefore rejected and the parties were left to raise their pleas before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether factual errors noticed in the earlier common judgment justified review; (ii) whether the alleged prior attachment by the Income-tax Department and the plea of void mortgage under section 281 warranted interference in review.

Issue (i): Whether factual errors noticed in the earlier common judgment justified review.

Analysis: The Court accepted that certain factual particulars in the earlier judgment could be corrected, including the identity of the person who had filed the securitisation application and the reference to the auction status of one of the properties. However, the Court held that these factual corrections did not affect the core reasoning or the parties' substantive rights to pursue independent remedies before the appropriate forum. Review jurisdiction was not intended to reopen the merits merely because some factual narration required correction.

Conclusion: The factual corrections did not furnish a ground to review the judgment, and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged prior attachment by the Income-tax Department and the plea of void mortgage under section 281 warranted interference in review.

Analysis: The Court held that the questions whether the properties had already been attached, whether proceedings had been initiated earlier, and whether the mortgage was void involved disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court further held that such issues concerning the enforceability of the secured creditor's charge and the alleged priority dispute were matters for adjudication before the DRT under the SARFAESI framework, particularly in view of the statutory remedy under section 17 and the overriding effect of sections 34 and 35. The Court also observed that the parties, including the Income-tax Department, remained free to raise all such pleas before the competent forum.

Conclusion: The plea that the mortgage was void or that the earlier observations required review on that ground was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review petitions were not found to disclose any error warranting interference, and the parties were relegated to pursue their remedies before the appropriate statutory forum on the disputed issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed questions relating to prior attachment, initiation of proceedings, and priority of charge cannot be determined in writ review and must be left to the competent statutory forum under the SARFAESI regime.

---