https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294099 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new material, an apparent error on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason, and it cannot be used to reargue the appeal. Applying that standard, the challenge failed because the court found no ground to revisit the appellate judgment. On the substantive issue, the secured assets sold under SARFAESI included hypothecated movables, but the section 31(b) exception did not apply since the movables were not pledged within section 172 of the Contract Act. The auction purchaser was therefore not saddled with the judgment debtor's arbitral award debt, and the review application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:44:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294099 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new material, an apparent error on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason, and it cannot be used to reargue the appeal. Applying that standard, the challenge failed because the court found no ground to revisit the appellate judgment. On the substantive issue, the secured assets sold under SARFAESI included hypothecated movables, but the section 31(b) exception did not apply since the movables were not pledged within section 172 of the Contract Act. The auction purchaser was therefore not saddled with the judgment debtor's arbitral award debt, and the review application was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294099