M/S Karimpur Motors and Ors. versus State Bank of India

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(M.A. Diary No. 855 of 2024)

¶3

(Arising out of Appeal No. 43 of 2022 in DRAT Kolkata)

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

M/s Karimpore Motor,

¶7

Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwala, son of Late Sawalram Agarwala, 3. Mr. Rajendra Kumr Agarwala, son of Late Sawalram Agarwala,

¶8

Smt. Lata Devi Agarwala alias Late Agarwala, wife of Gopal Kumar Agarwala,

¶9

Smt. Anamika Agarwala, wife of Sri Rajendra Kumar Agarwala, Appellant No. 1 to 5 all at Village + P.O. Karimpore, District – Nadia, P.S. -Karimpore, West Bengal, Pin – 741152. Appellant No. 2, 4 & 5 are represented through Appellant No. 3 hereinabove.

¶10

…Appellants

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

1. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India of Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (05171) Kolkata, having office at 2/1 Russel Street, Kankaria Centre, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata -700071.

¶13

District Magistrate, Nadia, Office of the District Magistrate, Munshikhana, Krishnanagar, Nadia.

¶14

Akash Rungta, son of Ratan Rungta of Village + P.O. Karimpur, District – Nadia, P.S. – Karimpur, West Bengal, Pin – 741152.

¶15

… Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the parties Mr. Nimish Mishra, Learned Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Learned Counsel Mr. Amit Nath, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

¶17

2

¶18

Mr.P.K. Mukherjee, Learned Counsel
for the Respondent Bank.
Mr. Joy Saha, Learned Senior
Advocate, Mr.
Pankaj Agarwal, Learned Counsel
Ms. Champa Pal,
Learned Counsel
for the Respondent
No.3/ Auction Purchaser

¶19

JUDGMENT : On 14^th November, 2024

¶20

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶21

An Application filed by Applicant under Section 22(2) (e) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Rule 6(A) of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 for review of the judgment and order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 43 of 2022 (Authorised Officer State Bank of India versus M/s Karimpore Motor and others). Applicant is Respondent No. 1 in the Appeal No. 43 of 2022. 2. An appeal No. 43 of 2022 (Authorised officer State Bank of India versus M/s Karimpore Motor) was filed by the Appellant State Bank of India challenging an order dated 11.07.2022 passed by DRT-2 Kolkata in I.A. No. 1020 of 2022 in S.A. No. 325 of 2022 (M/s Karimpore Motor and

¶22

3

¶23

others versus Authorised Officer State Bank of India and another).

¶24

3. In the Appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, Mr. Nimish Mishra Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Joy Saha, Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 5/ Auction Purchaser were heard. Appeal was decided and allowed vide order dated 23.08.2024 and following order was passed.

¶25

“Appeal is allowed. Observation made by the Learned DRT in the impugned order that Bank has not followed due procedure of law as provides under the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder is set aside. However, Learned DRT would be at liberty to arrive at its own finding in the pending S.A. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Learned DRT is expected to decide the matter expeditiously.”

¶26

4. Instant Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Applicant on 19.09.2024 with a prayer to recall the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Appeal No. 43 of 2022 and to direct the parties to maintain absolute status quo and not to create any third party interest and change the nature and character of the property. It is stated in Para No. 17 of the review application that Application is moved on the following

¶27

grounds:

¶28

(i) Order dated 23.08.2024 is a non speaking order as it does not disclose reasons.

¶29

(ii) Reasons were recorded in the impugned order dated 11.07.2022 which were not considered in the Appeal.

¶30

(iii) Order dated 23.08.2024 was passed at interlocutory stage and a prima facie view was taken by the DRAT.

¶31

(iv) Documents on record were not considered by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶32

(v) Taking advantage of the order dated 23.08.2024, Respondent Bank and the auction purchaser removed the valuable articles from the secured assets on 29.08.2024 and between 29.08.2024 to 01.09.2024 demolished the ancestral house of the Applicants.

¶33

4

¶34

(vi) A party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment merely for the purpose of re-hearing and a fresh decision, however the Court should re-open its judgment, if manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. 5. Opposition filed by the opposite party Bank wherein a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the Review Application. It is further stated that no ground for review of the order dated 23.08.2024 is made out from the records.

¶35

6. Separate objections are filed by the auction purchaser wherein apart from merits of the matter it is stated that the auction purchaser is a successful bidder who has deposited the bid amount and the possession was also handed over to him. Appeal No. 43 of 2022 was decided on 23.08.2024 on its own merits. Maintainability of the Review Petition was also under challenge on the ground that the Applicants are trying to achieve the result which they could not achieve in their own appeal pending before this Appellate Tribunal. No ground for review of the order dated 23.08.2024 is made out. No order of injunction has been violated by the auction purchaser. No order of injunction is in force on the date of decision of the Appeal No. 43 of 2022. In Para No. 10 of the objections it is denied that the auction purchaser has demolished and raised down the ancestral house of the petitioner or the nature and character of the property has been changed. Auction purchaser is a bona fide purchaser for value and is in possession of the said property since 29^th June, 2022.

¶36

5

¶37

7 . I have heard Mr. Nimish Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank, Mr. Joy Saha, Learned Senior Advocate for the auction purchaser at length and perused the records. 8. At the very outset it is to be observed that the Appeal No. 43 of 2022 was filed by State Bank of India against an order dated 11^th July, 2022 whereby Learned DRT-2 Kolkata passed an order on I.A. No. 1020 of 2022 arising out of S.A. No. 325 of 2022 whereby relief of injunction was sought by the SARFAESI Applicant restraining the Bank from delivering possession to the auction purchaser pursuant to the sale conducted on 08.06.2022 and to maintain the status quo. Learned DRT opined that the Defendant Bank has not followed the due procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules. Further, matter was posted on 2^nd August, 2022 for final hearing of I.A. No. 1020 of 2022 and I.A. No. 839 of 2022 on 2^nd August, 2022. It was also observed that the sale conducted by the Bank will be subject to the outcome of the I.A. No. 839 of 2022 and I.A. No. 1020 of 2022.

¶38

9. It further appears that an order was passed by the Learned DRT-2 Kolkata on 22^nd July, 2022 disposing of I.A. No. 1020 of 2022 wherein it was ordered that the I.A. is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Defendant Bank not to take any coercive measures in respect of such demolition of the structure till disposal of the Appeal.

¶39

10. As would appear from the records Appeal No. 43 of 2022 was filed against the order dated 11.07.2022.

¶40

6

¶41

11. Appeal Diary No. 662 of 2022 is filed by the SARFAESI Applicant against order dated 22.07.2022. Another Diary No. 258 of 2022 was filed against the order dated 13.06.2022 by the SARFAESI Applicant which was not pressed by the Appellant M/s Karimpore Motor and was dismissed as not pressed on 22.07.2022.

¶42

12. At the very outset Learned Counsel for the opposite party Bank as well as the auction purchaser vehemently opposed the Review petition on the ground of maintainability.

¶43

13. Learned Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Nimish Mishra argued that the Review Petition is filed under Section 22(2) (e) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 6(A) of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,1994. He has further placed reliance upon Order XLVII Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that the facts which were already on record were not considered at the time of hearing of the appeal while those were the relevant facts. It is further submitted that the residential house in the secured assets of the SARFAESI Applicant has been demolished by the opposite party i.e. Bank and the auction purchaser after decision of the Appeal which is done against the orders of restraint passed on 22.07.2022 by the Learned DRT. It is further submitted that the opposite parties have deliberately demolished the residential house of the Applicant which is a subsequent event. It is further argued that despite the order of injunction dated 22.07.2022

¶44

7

¶45

residential house of the Applicant has been demolished although that order is under challenge in Appeal Diary No. 662 of 2022. But the same has yet not been set aside. Hence, action of the Respondent is against law which is a valid ground for review.

¶46

14. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank argued that the Review Application is not maintainable in view of the fact that no error apparent on the face of record could be shown by the Applicant. No case for review is made out as provided under Order 47 CPC., Section 22 (2) (e) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act & Rule 6(A) of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. 15. Learned Counsel for the auction purchaser vehemently opposed the Review Petition on the ground of maintainability. It is submitted that the Review Petition is not maintainable under any of the three clauses of Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted that the Appeal was decided after considering the merits of the matter. If the Appellant was having any grievance against the judgment dated 23.08.2024, he could have availed the remedy permissibly under the law. But review of a judgment passed on merits is not permissible.

¶47

16. It is further submitted that any subsequent event could not be made a ground for review of an order / judgment under Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of NCT of Delhi versus K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. (2024) 7 SCC 315.

¶48

8

¶49

17. It is further submitted that auction purchaser has not violated any injunction order. Auction purchaser is in possession of the property. On the basis of a validly executed Sale Certificate, he has every right to deal with the property.

¶50

18. The core issues to be decided in this Review petition are (i) whether Review Application filed by the Respondent is legally maintainable or not?

¶51

(ii) Effect of demolition of the structure in the secured assets, if any? Whether this issue can be looked into in the Review Petition?

¶52

19. Order XLVII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:

¶53

1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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 decree or made the order.

¶57

(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.

¶58

[Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]

¶59

9

¶60

20. Rule 6-A of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

¶61

(Procedure) Rules,1994 reads as under:

¶62

[6-A (1) Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, desires to obtain a review of such order, may apply for a review to the Appellate Tribunal which passed the order.

¶63

(2) No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of (thirty days) from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.

¶64

(3) Where it appears to the Appellate Tribunal that sufficient ground for a review does not exist, it shall reject the application, and if it is satisfied with the grounds raised in the application for such review, it shall allow the application for review of the order:

¶65

Provided that no such application for review shall be allowed without previous notice and an opportunity of being heard is given to the opposite party.]

¶66

21. Section 22 (2) (e) of the Recovery of Debts and

¶67

Bankruptcy Act, 1993 reads as under:

¶68

22. Procedure and powers of the Tribunal and the Appellate

¶69

Tribunal.-

¶70

(1) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate their own procedure including the places at which they shall have their sittings.

¶71

(2)The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:-

¶72

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

¶73

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

¶74

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

¶75

(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

¶76

(e) reviewing its decisions ;

¶77

(f) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;

¶78

10

¶79

(g) Setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex-parte; (h) Any other matter which may be prescribed.

¶80

22. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax officer (2024) 2 SCC 362, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the law on the issue of review. In the said case, reliance was placed on Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. versus Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167 where it was held that-

¶81

“ In the words of Hon’ble Krishna Iyer J., (as his Lordship then was) “a plea of review unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look hopeful of discovery of flaws and refersal of result….. A review in the Counsel’s mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.”

¶82

23. Hon’ble Apex Court placed reliance on Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845 wherein it was held that-

¶83

“It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.”

¶84

24. Hon’ble Apex Court also placed reliance on Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 wherein it was held that –

¶85

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘ reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be

¶86

11

¶87

remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

¶88

25. A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shanti Conductors Private Limited Vs Assam State Electricity Board (2020) 2 SCC 677 held that-

¶89

“the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.”

¶90

26. Reliance was also placed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2023) 8 SCC 11 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law and held that:-

¶91

“From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.”

¶92

27. Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), (2021) 3 SCC 1 held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

¶93

28. In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra) it was held that-

¶94

The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:-

¶95

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶96

12

¶97

(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”

¶98

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise.”

¶99

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

¶100

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, ere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶101

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment or a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”

¶102

29. As far as error apparent on the face of record is concerned, it was held in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra) wherein reliance was placed upon Arun Dev Upadhyay (supra) that an error, which is not self-evident or has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. It was further held that under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the question as have already been addressed and decided. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

¶103

30. As far as the issue of any question which have already been addressed and decided is concerned, principle of promissory estoppel would apply herein. If a plea which could have been taken by the petitioner but has not been

¶104

13

¶105

taken or raised, then he is estopped from challenging or raising the same in subsequent proceedings.

¶106

31. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) versus K. L. Rathi Steels Ltd. (2024) 7 SCC 315 Hon’ble Apex Court has held that –

¶107

“ 42. Order 47 does not end with the circumstances as Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, the substantive provision, does. Review power under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds:

¶108

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) Any other sufficient reason.

¶109

43. Insofar as (i) (supra) is concerned, the review petitioner has to show that such evidence (a) was actually available on the date the court made the order/ decree, (b) with reasonable care and diligence, it could not be brought by him before the court at the time of the order/ decree, (c) it was relevant and material for a decision, and (d) by reason of its absence, a miscarriage of justice has been caused in the sense that had it been produced and considered by the court, the ultimate decision would have been otherwise.

¶110

44. Regarding (ii) (supra), the review petitioner has to satisfy the court that the mistake or error committed by it is self-evident and such mistake or error can be pointed out without any long-drawn process of reasoning; and, if such mistake or error is not corrected and is permitted to stand, the same will lead to a failure of justice. There cannot be a fit-in-all definition of “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record” and it has been considered prudent by the courts to determine whether any mistake or error does exist considering the facts of each individual case coming before it.

¶111

45. With regard to (iii) (supra) we can do no better than refer to the traditional view in Chhajju Ram versus Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11, a decision of a Bench of seven Law Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was held there that the words “any other sufficient reason” means “ a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously”, meaning thereby (i) and and (ii) (supra). Notably, Chhajju Ram (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in a number of decisions starting with Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius (1954) 2 SCC 42.”

¶112

14

¶113

32. Now we have to see as to whether the Review Petition is legally maintainable or not?

¶114

33. Review petition is filed mainly on the ground that certain documents at page No. 407 to 444 of the Paper Book or affidavit-in-opposition were not considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Further, a manifest wrong has been done to the Applicant, so the Review Petition should be entertained. In the Appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank submitted that Bank is only aggrieved by the observation made by the Learned DRT on the issue that Bank has not followed the due procedure of Law as provided under SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Bank that those observations are made at the time of hearing of the I.A. while the S.A. is still pending. All the issues raised by the SARFAESI Applicant have to be heard and decided by the Learned DRT after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties while the Learned Counsel for the SARFAESI Applicant submitted that the observations made by the Learned DRT were made after going through the records. These observations of the DRT were set aside by giving the DRT an opportunity to arrive at its own finding in the pending S.A. after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The findings recorded by the DRT regarding nonobservance of the procedure by the DRT were only at an interim stage when I.A. No. 1020 of 2022 was still pending. DRT was still seized with the matter to decide SARFAESI

¶115

15

¶116

Application. Such finding were recorded only at the interim stage which could not have any bearing on the final disposal of the SARFAESI Application. This is a settled legal proposition that all the interim orders would merge in the final order which was to be passed by the DRT at the stage of decision of the SARFAESI Application.

¶117

34. Much arguments are placed by both the sides on the issue of demolition of structure at the secured assets. Whether the demolition if any, was made in violation of any interim order of injunction or not could not be looked into in the Review Petition. These are the issues which can only be looked into by the DRT at an appropriate stage in the pending S.A. All such issues are open to be raised and decided by the DRT in the pending S.A. No finding is being recorded in this review petition. Maintainability of the Review petition depends upon the grounds as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) versus K. L. Rathi Steels Ltd. (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax officer (supra). Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure comes into place on the following grounds:

¶118

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence or

¶119

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reasons.

¶120

35. In the present case no new and important matter of evidence could be placed on record by the Applicant which

¶121

16

¶122

may warrant a review of the judgment. No mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason could be proved by the Applicants. It is submitted that the demolition of the residential house would be a ground which is covered under the head” any other sufficient reason.” I am afraid that this could not be taken as a ground for reviewing the judgment as was held in Chhajju Ram versus Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11, by a Bench of seven Law Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council wherein it was held that the words “any other sufficient reason” would be a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously”, meaning thereby (i) and (ii) (supra). (i) and (ii) relates to discovery of new and important matter or evidence or mistake or apparent on the face of record but none of them could have been proved by the Applicant. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to maintain the Review petition by the Applicant. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the Review Petition is not legally maintainable.

¶123

36. On the basis of discussion made above, I am of the considered view that no mistake or error apparent on the face of record could be shown by the Applicant in the judgment dated 23.08.2024. Review petition could not be treated as an appeal in disguise. There is no sufficient reason to review the judgment dated 23.08.2024. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Review petition is

¶124

17

¶125

liable to be dismissed as not maintainable with the observations made in the body of the judgment.

¶126

ORDER

¶127

Review Petition is dismissed as not maintainable with the observations made in the body of the judgment.

¶128

No Order as to costs.

¶129

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶130

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶131

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶132

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14^th day of November, 2024.

¶133

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶134

Dated: 14^th November, 2024

¶135

/tp

M/S Karimpur Motors and Ors. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Karimpur Motors and Ors. 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

Similar cases

M/S. Lazarus Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. versus Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Co. Ltd.

Hari Kishan Agarwal versus State Bank of India

Arcil versus Nil Ratan Dey and Anr.

Indian Bank versus Smt Alpana Saha

State Bank of India versus Tadikonda Prabhakar

Anirban Aditya President of Dum Dum Aditya Educational Society versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited