Manju Saxena v. The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

1. This is an application filed by the applicant/review petitioner seeking condonation of 32 days delay in re-filing the present review petition. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the review petition is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of. REV.PET.509/2019

3. The appellant, who appears in-person, seeks review of the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by this Court. She submits that on the said date, this 2019:DHC:6853-DB Court has incorrectly recorded that she agrees that all disputes and differences with the respondent bank stand duly settled and she does not press the appeal.

4. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 06.12.2019 we had cautioned the appellant of the consequences that would arise from filing a false affidavit when she had made a similar statement as to her disputes not having been settled; and brought to her notice the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11766-11767/2018. But she persisted in arguing; and we were constrained to adjourn the matter to today. However, the position is no different today.

5. To appreciate the background of the case, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the order passed by this Court on 06.09.2019, which reads as under: “LPA 578/2019 and C.M. No.39944/2019 (directions) The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge on an application filed by her in a disposed of writ petition, whereby she had sought release of certain amounts lying in the Registry of this court. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this court to an order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.11766- 11767/2018, para 6 of which we reproduce below:- “6. In light of the discussions above, the aforesaid amounts received by her may be treated as a final settlement of all her claims. The impugned Judgment of the Division Bench dated 14.07.2017, is modified to this extent. The Civil Appeals stand dismissed, with no order as to costs. All applications stand disposed of accordingly.” The amounts referred to the foregoing para are reflected in a table appearing in the Supreme Court order, which aggregate to Rs.1,07,73,736/- which have admittedly been received by the appellant. Counsel for the respondent contends that all disputes and differences between the parties arising from all matters therefore stand duly settled. He further submits that in light of the Supreme Court order, the bank has decided not to press any claim for the balance amount due from the petitioner towards her housing loan; and the bank also has no objection to the release of her title deeds. He submits that the bank is willing to stand by this position provided the appellant also gives a quietus to the matter. In view of the above, at this stage, the appellant submits that as the bank has decided to put a quietus to the matter and decided to release her title deeds without demanding any further sum towards her housing loan, she also agrees that all disputes and differences with the bank stand duly settled; and that she does not press this appeal. Parties submit that they have no claim against each other; and that title deeds be released in favour of the appellant. In view of the stand taken by both the parties, we modify the order of the learned Singh Judge only insofar as it relates to imposition of costs; while upholding the order otherwise. Title deeds be released in favour of the appellant within seven working days, on proper verification, without any notice to the bank. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”

6. We also deem it appropriate to extract the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal Nos.11766- 11767/2018, more particularly, paragraph 5.[4] and para 6, which read as under: “5.[4] The Appellant has admittedly received an amount of Rs.1,07,73,736/- under various heads: HEADS AMOUNT(IN RS.) Towards Notice Period 1,77,684/- Severance Pay 6,39,387/- Gratuity 3,81,209/- Back Wages pursuant to Execution 8,00,000/- Towards Interim Award 33,19,096/- Payments made under S.17B 54,56,360/- TOTAL 1,07,73,736/- The appellant has claimed an amount of Rs.69.99 lakhs. The Appellant has already received almost double the amount claimed by her.

6. In light of the discussions above, the afore-said amounts received by her may be treated as a final settlement of all her claims. The impugned Judgment of the Division Bench dated 14.07.2017, is modified to this extent. The Civil Appeals stand dismissed, with no order as to costs. All applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

7. The appellant however continues to submit that there are amounts that are still due to her by the Bank. In para 5.[4] of the order passed by the Apex Court, a categorical admission has been recorded that the appellant, who had claimed Rs.69.99 lakhs, had in fact received the sum of Rs.1,07,73,736/-. In para 6, the Supreme Court had further observed that the amounts received by the appellant may be treated as a final settlement of all her claims and the order of the Division Bench was modified to that extent, while dismissing the Civil Appeals.

8. After passing of this order by the Supreme Court, the appellant had filed an application being CM.APPL 33275/2019 in the disposed of W.P.(C).No.11344/2009, seeking a direction to the Bank to release the excess amount in favour of the applicant as recorded vide order dated 15.12.2006 and 03.07.2013. This application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 26.07.2019. Paras 11 to 15 of the said order read as under:

9. We may note that while dismissing the aforesaid application, the learned Single Judge had imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on the applicant/appellant herein. When the matter was listed on 06.09.2019, the respondent Bank made a statement that in the light of the order of the Supreme Court, the Bank had decided not to press any claim for the balance amount due from the appellant towards her housing loan, provided the appellant gives a quietus to the matter. It is in this background and after fully understanding the proceedings, that the statement was made by the appellant to not press the appeal. Due notice must also be taken of the fact that the appellant had worked with the respondent Bank for 20 years as Senior Confidential Secretary and is therefore not ignorant of the basics of financial matters. With a view to ensuring that the appellant is not put to any inconvenience, this Court had in fact directed the Registry to release the title deeds in the appellant’s favour within seven working days and also set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs. We may also note that after the order was passed, the appellant got the title deeds released from the Registry.

10. In this backdrop, in our view, not only is the review petition misconceived and mala fide but it has been filed with ulterior motives. Not only has a false affidavit been sworn by the appellant, but valuable time of the Court is being wasted yet again.