Dismissed

Ms Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRAT20 Sept 2023REGULAR APPEAL/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's application for review of an order refusing a waiver of pre-deposit. The Court held that no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record existed, as the issue of the amount deposited was already considered and decided on merits. The review application was dismissed, and the appeal was listed for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The application for review (Diary No. 260 of 2023) was dismissed as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

Ms Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 59 of 2023

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

20.09.2023 M/s. TBPR Infra Projects Private Limited … Appellant -VsState Bank of India ... Respondent Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶6

Mr. Ajay Gaggar with Mr. Mukul Banerjee, Counsel for Respondent

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

Diary No. 260 of 2023

¶9

Application filed by Respondent Bank for review of the order dated 17^th March, 20-23 passed in Diary No. 608 of 2022 whereby I.A. 406 of 2022, moved by the Appellant under the Second Proviso to Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was allowed and the appeal was registered as regular appeal.

¶10

In the review application, no separate grounds are mentioned but Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon paragraph 7 of the application and submits that there are apparent error on the face of the record as the amount of Rs.7,62,33,640.00 was deposited by the Appellant which was an amount deposited after rejection of the OTS by the Bank. The Appellant himself deposited the amount. It is further submitted that after deduction of the amount net amount due and payable comes to Rs.8.14,37,180.00 and 50% of the same should have been deposited by the Appellant as pre deposit. Learned Counsel submits that this factual error is apparent on the face of the record as the amount deposited by the Appellant was after rejection of the OTS which cannot be adjusted in the debt due. Accordingly, Learned

¶11

¶12

Counsel submits that the order dated 17^th March, 2023 needs to be reviewed.

¶13

Learned Counsel for Appellant opposes the prayer and submits that the application for review is not legally maintainable. Respondents are trying to enter into the merits of the matter which is not permissible under the law. There is no error in the order which is apparent on the face of the record.

¶14

Before entering into the merits of the matter, I would like to observe that I.A. 406 of 2022 was filed by the Appellant under the Second Proviso of Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking waiver from making pre deposit. Objections were filed by the Respondent Bank. Application was disposed of on 17^th March, 2023. Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & Another Vs. Prudent ARC Limited & Others [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11] was considered. Amount deposited by the Appellant was also considered and it was held that since more than 50% of the amount as debt including interest has already been deposited by the Appellant, I.A. 406 of 2022 was allowed. Factual aspect regarding deposit of Rs.7.61 crore was also discussed. Order was passed on merits.

¶15

As far as power of review is concerned, it is provided in Rule 6A (i) of DRAT Rules 1994 that any party aggrieved by an order on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record may apply for review. This provision is akin to the provisions of review under Order 47 C.P.C. which reads as under:

¶16

Order XLVII of the C.P.C.

¶17

1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved –

¶18

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

¶19

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶20

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

¶21

¶22

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

¶23

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.”

¶24

As far as some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is concerned, the issue of deposit of Rs.7.61 crore was raised by the Appellant as well as opposed by the Bank which was duly considered and finding was recorded regarding sufficiency of the amount already deposited by the Appellant to meet the requirement of pre deposit under Second Proviso to Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record which could warrant a review of the order dated 17^th March, 2023. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to review the order. As a result, the application, being Diary No. 260 of 2023, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

Respondents may file opposition to the appeal within a period of four weeks with copy to the Appellant who may file rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

¶26

List on 10^th January, 2024 for hearing of appeal.

¶27

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶28

Dated 20^th September, 2023 17/ac

¶29

Note: Order re-typed as per order dated 10.01.2024 after incorporating correction regarding Order 47 C.P.C.

¶30

Sd/- Chairperson 10.01.2024

¶31

Ms Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

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

Smt Prabha Kumari versus Bank of Baroda

Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund versus Antartica Ltd.

Smt K Annapurna versus Union Bank of India and Anr.

aadhar housing finance Ltd. versus s rajesh

Ritesh Kumar Rupesh Kumar Loh-Ispat Private Limited versus State Bank of India

Smt Aruna Devi Gupta versus Union Bank of India