Dismissed¶8

M/s. Ms Constructions, v. Union Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2026WP/4592/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P.No.4592 of 2026; review order dated 27.02.2026 by RNT, J and BM, J; review of judgment dated 16.02.2026 dismissed; review through different/change of counsel not entertained; Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. N.Raju Reddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736 relied on; no error apparent on the face of the order; counsel's statement recorded in para (7); delivery warrant in abeyance; deposit of Rs.1,67,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) with respondent/Bank by 23.02.2026; OTS final payment 28.02.2026 versus 16.03.2026; extension of time by 15 days refused for lack of bona fide; I.A.No.2 dismissed, I.A.No.4 rejected, I.A.No.3 (certified copy dispensation) closed.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to entertain Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 filed through a different counsel, relying on the Apex Court's ruling in Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. N.Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736, deprecating the practice of changing advocates and filing repeated petitions.

Sl.
No.

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

27.02.2026

RNT, J&BM, J
Review I.A.No.2 of 2026, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of
2026

The writ petition was disposed of vide
judgment/order
dated
16.02.2026,
in
the
following terms:
“9. Considering that the learned Presiding
Officer of the Tribunal is presently on
leave, as also the consent of the learned
counsels on either side, as aforesaid, we
deem it appropriate to provide that the
delivery warrant shall remain in abeyance,
subject to the following conditions :
a) The
petitioners
shall
deposit/pay
a
sum
of
Rs.1,67,50,000/-(Rupees One
Crore Sixty Seven Lakhs Fifty
Thousand
only)
with
the
respondent/Bank
within
a
period of one week from today,
i.e., on or before 23.02.2026.
b) In default of such payment
within the stipulated time as
aforesaid, the same delivery
warrant shall be proceeded
with
and
the
Advocate-
Commissioner shall execute
the same in accordance with
law.

10.
It is clarified that this order is

without prejudice to the terms of the OTS for final payment is to be made on or before 28.02.2026.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of finally.”
2. The aforesaid order was passed as
learned counsel for the petitioners stated before the Court and which was recorded in para No.(7) of the judgment, which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the payment could not be made as per the OTS schedule, but the petitioners are ready to pay the amount as due under the two installments, i.e., *Rs.1,67,50,000/-*, within one (01) week from today, without prejudice to the remaining terms of the OTS, wherein the final payment is to be made on or before 28.02.2026.”
3. Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioners through another counsel namely,
Sri G.V.V.S.Vara Prasad, for review of the
judgment, dated 16.02.2026.
4. I.A.No.4 of 2026 has also been filed by the
same counsel, who filed the review petition for extension of time by 15 days to comply with the order dated 16.02.2026.
5. Firstly, we shall not entertain the review I.A.No.2 of 2026 by a different counsel.

without prejudice to the terms of the OTS
for final payment is to be made on or
before 28.02.2026.

11.
With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the Writ Petition is
disposed of finally.”

2.
The aforesaid order was passed as

learned counsel for the petitioners stated before
the Court and which was recorded in para No.(7)
of the judgment, which reads as under:
“Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submits that due to certain unavoidable
circumstances, the payment could not be
made as per the OTS schedule, but the
petitioners are ready to pay the amount as
due under the two installments, i.e.,
Rs.1,67,50,000/-, within one (01) week
from today, without prejudice to the
remaining terms of the OTS, wherein the
final payment is to be made on or before
28.02.2026.”

3.
Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 has been filed by
the petitioners through another counsel namely,

Sri G.V.V.S.Vara Prasad, for review of the

judgment, dated 16.02.2026.

4.
I.A.No.4 of 2026 has also been filed by the

same counsel, who filed the review petition for
extension of time by 15 days to comply with the
order dated 16.02.2026.

5.
Firstly, we shall not entertain the review
I.A.No.2 of 2026 by a different counsel.

6. In**Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. N.Raju Reddiar((1997) 9 SCC 736),**the Hon’ble Apex
court held as under:
“Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.”
7. Secondly, the order in the writ petition was
passed in view of the contents of para No.(7), in
which the then counsel made statement with
respect to the payment. So, there cannot be said
to be any error apparent on the face of the order dated 16.02.2026.
8. Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 is dismissed.
9. For the same reason that the order was
passed in view of what the counsel stated and
upon such statement, the learned Standing
Counsel had also accepted. Now, without
complying any part of the order/judgment,
application for extension by 15 days has been
filed. The review petitioner/applicant lacks in
bonafide. He must have complied by deposit of
two instalments amount of approximately
Rs.1,67,50,000/- and then could have
approached for extension of time to deposit the
balance by 16.03.2026, instead of 20.02.2026,
satisfying this Court that the last date to clear the

6.
In**Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. N.Raju
Reddiar((1997) 9 SCC 736),**the Hon’ble Apex

court held as under:

“Once
the
petition
for
review
is
dismissed, no application for clarification
should be filed, much less with the
change of the Advocate-on-Record.
This practice of changing the advocates
and filing repeated petitions should be
deprecated with a heavy hand for purity
of administration of law and salutary and
healthy practice.”

7.
Secondly, the order in the writ petition was

passed in view of the contents of para No.(7), in

which the then counsel made statement with

respect to the payment. So, there cannot be said

to be any error apparent on the face of the order
dated 16.02.2026.

8.
Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 is dismissed.

9.
For the same reason that the order was

passed in view of what the counsel stated and

upon such statement, the learned Standing

Counsel had also accepted. Now, without

complying any part of the order/judgment,

application for extension by 15 days has been

filed. The review petitioner/applicant lacks in

bonafide. He must have complied by deposit of

two
instalments
amount
of
approximately

Rs.1,67,50,000/-
and
then
could
have

approached for extension of time to deposit the

balance by 16.03.2026, instead of 20.02.2026,

satisfying this Court that the last date to clear the

entire due under	O.T.S is 16.03.2	026 and not
28.02.2026.
10. We do not time as well.	find it a case for	extension of
11. I.A.No.4 of	2026 is also rejec	ted.
12. Since the	Review I.A.No.2	of 2026 has
been dismissed, I to dispense with dated 16.02.2026 stands closed.	.A.No.3 of 2026, the certified copy in W.P.No.4592	which is filed of the order of 2026 also
	__	___________ RNT, J
Pab	__	___________ BM, J

entire due under

O.T.S is 16.03.2

026 and not

28.02.2026.

10.
We do not
time as well.

find it a case for

extension of

11.
I.A.No.4 of

2026 is also rejec

ted.

12.
Since the

Review I.A.No.2

of 2026 has

been dismissed, I
to dispense with
dated 16.02.2026
stands closed.

.A.No.3 of 2026,
the certified copy
in W.P.No.4592

which is filed
of the order
of 2026 also

___________
RNT, J

Pab

___________
BM, J

M/s. Ms Constructions, v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ms Constructions, v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Vs M/s. A.S. Constructions, Hyd.

M Kishore Kumar, Vizianagaram Dist Vs M.Rama Simha Roja Nalini, Vizianagaram Dist

Kadali Kalyani, W/o.Chittbabu Vs Kadali Chitti Babu