Dismissed

Arcil v. Ihfd Nagar welfare association & Ors.

DRAT10 Nov 2022MISC APPEAL/42/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejected a review application and a corresponding stay application. The court held that the omission of written submissions from the order did not constitute a 'mistake apparent on the face of record' due to specific Rule 6(A) restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Application IA Dy.No.552/2022 (Review) and IA Dy.No.553/2022 (stay) are rejected.

Arcil versus Ihfd Nagar welfare association & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

IA Dy.No 552/2022 & IA Dy.No 553/2022 In MA 42/2019

¶3

Ihfd Nagar Welfare Association And Others Vs Arcil

¶4

10/11/2022

¶5

IA Dy.No.552/2022 is an application filed under Section 22(2)(e) of RDDB & FI Act, 1993 for reviewing order of this Tribunal dated 20.7.2022 passed in MA 42/2019.

¶6

It is contended that submissions made by applicant are not incorporated in the said order, namely, with regard to properties of the applicant. Office raised an objection that it does not fall under the category of ‘mistake apparent on the face of record’ and upon request of Ld. Counsel for applicant, matter is called before the Bench today, to hear on maintainability.

¶7

Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its decision, in re , Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and others Vs. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others reported in AIR 1954 SF 526 interpreted the word ‘ mistake apparent on the face of record’ and considering the same, ground urged in the review application should fall under the said category and referred to paragraph 17 of the said judgment.

¶8

However, I am not in agreement with the submission of Ld. Counsel for applicant because Order 47 of CPC provides couple of grounds for review including ground of any other sufficient reason, who desires to obtain a review and make an application. But, Rule 6(A) of DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 restricts that power to the ground of ‘mistake apparent on the face or record’ and not recording submissions of Ld. Counsel for applicant in the impugned order, in my considered view, will not fall under the category of ‘mistake on the face of record’ and that may be a ground for the appellant or applicant to challenge before Superior Court.

¶9

Therefore, Office is right in raising the said objection and the same is sustained and Application IA Dy.No.552/2022 (Review) is rejected. Consequently, Dy.No.553/2022 (stay) is also rejected.

¶10

Sd/Chairperson

Arcil v. Ihfd Nagar welfare association & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arcil v. Ihfd Nagar welfare association & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Premier Distilleries Private Limited Managing Director Mr Sekar Kumaraswamy versus State Bank of India

R Dhanalakshmi Ors. versus Union Bank of India and Ors.

M/S.Religare Finvest Limited versus M/s Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Michael JansieBai W/o. Late Antony Subash versus Indian Bank

A K Jaya Prakash versus Bank of India

Sun Yarn versus Bank of India