Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The Kerala Financial Corporation vs Premaraj M.A on 16 April, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.17342 of 2024)
THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR. APPELLANTS
A1 : THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
A2 : THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN
VERSUS
PREMARAJ M.A. & ORS. RESPONDENTS
R1 : PREMARAJ M.A.
R2 : ASOK KUMAR N.
R3 : BHAKTHA MEERA K.
R4 : N. RAMANANDA PANICKAR
R5 : BASHEER T. MUSTHAFA
R6 : RAVEENDRAN NAIR
R7 : RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
R8 : SAKUNTHALA C.
R9 : K.S.V. NAYAKAM (DEAD)
R10 : AMRUTHAM T.C.
R11 : JAYACHANDRA SARMA G.
Signature Not Verified
R12 : SEBASTIAN T.J.
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2026.04.21
17:15:53 IST
Reason:
R13 : N. VASUDEVAN
R14 : P. RAMAN PANICKER
2
R15 : M. SANKAR SEN
R16 : P.D. PRASAD
R17 : G.S. CHANDRASEKHARAN
R18 : SREELATHA SUKUMAR
R19 : G. RAVENNDRAN NAIR
R20 : N.G. DIVAKARAN
R21 : R. GOPINATHAN NAIR
R22 : K.E. PADMABHAN NAIR
R23 : M. KATHIRKUNJU
R24 : K.R. RAJAGOPAL
R25 : K.S. SASEENDRAN
R26 : M. SHAJIHAN
R27 : K.M. JAYALEKSHMI
R28 : V.M. CHEKKU
R29 : K.P. ANNAMMA
R30 : THE UNION OF INDIA
R31 : SANJEEV KAUSHIK
R32 : THE EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
R33 : STATE OF KERALA
O R D E R
Heard Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned senior counsel for the
respondents no. 1 to 5.
2. Application for substitution to bring on record the legal
representatives of deceased respondent no.9 is allowed. Cause title
3
be amended accordingly.
3. Leave granted.
4. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated
25.03.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala
at Ernakulam in R.P. No.656 of 2023, whereby the Division Bench has
reviewed and recalled its earlier judgment dated 23.03.2023 in Writ
Appeal No.545 of 2023 and has directed that it be listed along with
the other connected and pending Writ Appeals.
5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned order is absolutely unsustainable in law. It was contended
that, once on merits the judgment had been passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court, the ground that similar Writ Appeals are
admitted and pending and not considered, would not be a ground for
recall. It was further contended that at best, in the other
matters, the Coordinate Bench would have had the jurisdiction
either to agree with the order passed by the said Division Bench or
to refer the matter to a larger Bench, and thereafter, it was
contended that the party aggrieved would have had the liberty to
move before this Court in accordance with law assailing the order
either way but recalling it on the ground that similar matters are
still pending and yet unadjudicated can never be a ground. He
relied upon a decision of two-Judge Bench of this Court in Budhia
Swain and Others v Gopinath Deb and Others (1999) 4 SCC 396 wherein
this Court held as under:-
“6. What is a power to recall? Inherent power to
recall its own order vesting in tribunals or courts
was noticed in Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres India
Pvt. Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 550. Vide para 23, this Court
4has held that the courts have inherent power to recall
and set aside an order
(i) obtained by fraud practised upon the Court,
(ii) when the Court is misled by a party, or
(iii) when the Court itself commits a mistake which
prejudices a party.
In A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1988)2 SCC
602(vide para 130), this Court has noticed motions to
set aside judgments being permitted where
(i) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact
that a necessary party had not been served at all and
was shown as served or in ignorance of the fact that a
necessary party had died and the estate was not
represented,
(ii) a judgment was obtained by fraud,
(iii) a party has had no notice and a decree was made
against him and such party approaches the Court for
setting aside the decision ex debito justitiae on
proof of the fact that there was no service.
….
8. In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall
an order earlier made by it if
(i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer
from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack
of jurisdiction is patent,
(ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the
judgment,
(iii) there has been a mistake of the court
prejudicing a party or
(iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact
that a necessary party had not been served at all or
had died and the estate was not represented.
The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised
when the ground for re-opening the proceedings or
vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in
the original action but was not done or where a proper
remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of
appeal or revision was available but was not availed.
The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost
by waiver, estoppel or acquiescence.”
5
6. He also referred to a later judgment by a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v
Prabhjit Singh Soni and Another (2024) 6 SCC 767 wherein, relying
on the earlier judgment in Budhia Swain (supra), this Court held as
under:-
“47. In Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb (1999) 4 SCC 396,
after considering a number of decisions, a two-Judge Bench
of this Court observed:
“8. In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an
order earlier made by it if
(i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from
the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of
jurisdiction is patent,
(ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the
judgment,
(iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a
party, or
(iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that
a necessary party had not been served at all or had died
and the estate was not represented.
The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when
the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacating the
judgment was available to be pleaded in the original
action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some
other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was
available but was not availed. The right to seek vacation
of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel or
acquiescence.”
7. Though, Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned senior counsel for the
respondents no. 1 to 5 has assisted the Court, but on a direct
query as to the ground on which, the review petition has been
allowed could be sustained, he could not defend, especially in view
of the submissions made and the precedents cited by learned senior
counsel for the appellants.
8. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find that the
contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants
6
is correct. The power to recall, as has been done in the present
case, is totally erroneous. The High Court misdirected itself by
holding that just because other Writ Appeals of similar nature were
admitted and pending, the present case also ought not to have been
decided together and thus, a detailed order on merits has been
recalled for being heard again along with the other Writ Appeals.
Thus we find the impugned order is in the teeth of both the settled
principles of review/recall, as also the judgments relied upon by
the learned senior counsel for the appellants.
9. For reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 25.03.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in R.P. No.656 of 2023 stands set aside. As a consequence,
the judgment dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court in Writ Appeal No.545 of 2023 stands restored.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………..………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[VIJAY BISHNOI]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 16, 2026
7
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17342/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-03-2024
in RP No.656/2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]
THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PREMARAJ M.A. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 279248/2024 – APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 162189/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 16-04-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Dhanya P. Ashokan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, AOR
Mr. Venugopal, Adv.
Mrs. Samriti Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Eka Kumari Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv.
Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv.
Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR
Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Santhosh K., Adv.
Mrs. Devika A.L., Adv.
8
O R D E R
Heard Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Application for substitution to bring on record the legal
representatives of deceased respondent no.9 is allowed. Cause title
be amended accordingly.
3. Leave granted.
4. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)