Asha Memorial Trust and Ors. v. Icici Bank Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal Tribunal dismissed a review application by ICICI Bank Ltd. against its own judgment. The Court held that grounds of contradictory findings touch the merits and cannot support a review when a revision is pending before the High Court.
What did the court decide?
Misc. Application Dy. No. 247 of 2023 was dismissed; pending I.A.s disposed of accordingly.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(MA Dy. No. 247 of 2023)
(Arising out of O.A. No. 89 of 2017 in DRT-3 Kolkata) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
08.06.2023
ICICI Bank Ltd. … Appellant -VsAsha Memorial Trust & Ors. ….Respondents Mr. Sanjib Das, Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Ms. Shreyasi Sen, Learned Counsel, Mr. Somraj Naskar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as Respondent and perused the record. It appears that a Civil Revision is filed by the Applicant against the judgment dated 3rd March, 2023 passed by this Tribunal which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.
Applicant has moved this application for review and modification of the order on the ground that there are certain contradictory findings recorded by this Tribunal. Hence, the judgment be modified.
As far as power of review or recall is concerned, review of an order can only be made on certain grounds. But the ground taken by the Applicant to the effect that there are contradictory findings touches the merit of the matter. Once a judgment is pronounced on merit, merely on the ground
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review application can be allowed when the ground taken is contrary findings touching the merit of a judgment already pending before the High Court in revision.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
ICICI Bank Ltd.
- respondent
Asha Memorial Trust & Ors.
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court