The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by a borrower challenging the dismissal of his review application before the DRT. The Tribunal found the review application lacked merits and errors apparent on the face of the record, rejecting the limitation plea.
The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Appeal No. 75 of 2023
(Arising out of MA 95 of 2020 in SA 76 of 2019 in DRT- Cuttack)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
22.06.2023
Daitari Moharana, S/o Adikanda Mollharana of At/PO Jorabaga, PS Belpahara, Dist. Jharsuguda.
… Appellant
-Vs-
… Respondents
For the appellant :Mr. Akhay Kr. Sahoo., Learned Counsel For Respondent :
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 passed by learned DRT Cuttack in M.A. No. 95 of 2020 arising out of S.A. No. 76 of 2019, the appeal is preferred by the appellant.
2
“However, the respondent no.4 filed one memo on 08.11.2019 showing the expenses incurred and amount paid to the bank totally is Rs.3,72,625/- and further stated to direct the applicant to pay Rs.3.73,625/- to the respondent no.4 before execution of sale deed. Copies served to other side and action taken by the respondent bank under SARFAESI Act is valid and since the respondent no.4 filed memo showing the expenditure made by him as Rs.3,72,625/- and agreed to pay the amount by the applicant he has no objection to take the property by applicant and requesting the money. Hence, the applicant is at liberty to keep his property, he is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.3,72,625/- as mentioned by the respondent no.4 in the memo within two months from the date of this order and pay the same to the respondent No.2 bank and pay EMIs regularly and clear the loan account.”
Thereafter, M.A. No. 95 of 2020 was filed by the appellant before DRT Cuttack for review of the order dated 28.02.2020 by the learned DRT. M.A. 95 of 2020 was disposed of on 07.10.2020. Feeling aggrieved appellant preferred the appeal.
3
outbreak the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. It is further submitted that Memo as mentioned in the judgement of the learned DRT was not served upon the appellant. However, appellant was prepared to comply with the direction of the DRT by making payment, but all these pleas were not considered and the review application was dismissed.
(1) Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake of error apparent on the face of the record desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.
(2) No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.
(3) Where it appears to the Tribunal that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application but where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application for review shall be granted, it shall grant the same:
(2) Provided that no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party to enable him to appear and to be heard in support of the order, a review of which is applied for.”
Bare perusal of the Rule will show that review application can
only be entertained if mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Secondly, review application has to be filed within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. As far as period of limitation is concerned in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble
4
Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020 (supra) the application is within time.
5
of notice. Necessary action in this regard be taken under
intimation to this Tribunal.
O R D E R
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondent and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd of June, 2023.
Sd/(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 22nd June, 2023
09/pkb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review application dismissing the review is maintainable when grounds amount to filing a fresh appeal.
Whether the exclusion of the limitation period due to the COVID-19 outbreak brings the review application within time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Daitari Moharana
UCO Bank Ltd.
Maheswara Sahu
Srikanta Moharana
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
