Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shri Bihariji Cold Rollers Private Limited

DRAT8 Oct 2024MISC APPEAL/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DTAT allowed an appeal challenging the DRT's order allowing a review petition. The DTAT held that the DRT committed no legal error in dismissing the review, finding the original hearing was on merits and the procedural irregularity alleged was not an error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The review application allowing R.A. No. 04 of 2022 is set aside and dismissed. The order dated 29.03.2022 is restored.

State Bank of India versus Shri Bihariji Cold Rollers Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

Reportable/ Not Reportable

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

(Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2023)

¶4

(Arising out of R.A. No. 4 of 2022 in S.A. No. 205 of 2015 in DRT – I Kolkata)

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

CHAIRPERSON

¶7

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, having its Corporate Office at Madam Kama Road, Mumabai-4000 21 and its branch office at Stressed Asset Management Branch-I, Nagaland House (8^th Floor), 11 & 13 Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071, West Bengal.

¶8

Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, having its branch office at Stressed Asset Management Branch-I, Nagaland House, 8^th Floor, 11 & 13, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071.

¶9

…Appellants

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

Shri Bihariji Cold Rollers Private Limited, a Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, having its registered office at 492, 4^th Floor and 102 on 1^st Floor at Vatasalua Chamber, 4A, N.C. Dutta Sarani, Kolkata 700001.

¶12

Mrs. Sangeeta Agarwal, wife of Late Durga Prasad Agarwal, residing at Flat No. 2C, 2^nd Floor, Sanaskar Apartment, 8, Lake Range, Kolkata 700026.

¶13

Sri Ankur Agarwal, S/o Lt. Durga Prasad Agarwal residing at Village & P.O. Kanduah, P.S. – Sankrail, Dist. – Howrah. Pin 711302.

¶14

Sri Harsh Agarwal, S/o. Ltd. Durga Prasad Agarwal, residing at Village & P.O. Kanduah, P.S. – Sankrail, Dist. – Howrah. Pin 711302.

¶15

… Respondents

¶16

¶17

Counsel for the parties Mr. Debasish Chakrabarty, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

¶18

Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Learned Counsel Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Learned Counsel for Respondents

¶19

JUDGMENT : On 8^th October, 2024

¶20

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶21

Instant Appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Learned DRT -1 Kolkata in R.A. No. 04 of 2022 arising out of S.A. No. 205 of 2015 (Shri Bihariji Cold Rollers Private Ltd. and others versus State Bank of India and others) whereby Learned DRT allowed the Review Application.

¶22

2. Feeling Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Appellant herein, who are opposite party Respondent before the Learned DRT, preferred the Appeal. 3. As per pleadings of the parties an S.A. No. 205 of 2015 was filed before the Learned DRT which was dismissed on 29.03.2022.

¶23

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order, Review petition No. 04 of 2022 was filed by the SARFAESI Applicant before the Learned DRT for review of the judgment and

¶24

¶25

order dated 29.03.2022 passed by Learned DRT in S.A. No. 205 of 2015 with a consequential reliefs on the ground that the Learned DRT did not hear the SARFAESI Applicants on the merits of the Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is stated that the Learned Presiding Officer heard the I.A. No. 2385 of 2021 and 336 of 2022. Only thereafter orders were reserved. On 24.03.2022, matter was ordered to be listed on 25.04.2022, but the judgment was pronounced on 29.03.2022 without communicating the date of pronouncement of order to the SARFAESI Applicant. SARFAESI Applicant came to know about the same on 02.04.2022. It is further stated that the order of dismissal of the SARFAESI Application has been passed illegally and is perverse. The matter was not listed for hearing on delivery of judgment on 29.03.2022. Accordingly, it was an error apparent on the face of record. It is further stated that the Applicants have filed a C.O. No. 1134 of 2022 (Shri Bihariji Cold Rollers Private Ltd. and others versus State Bank of India and others) against the judgment dated 29.03.2022 passed in S.A. No. 205 of 2015 which was decided by the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta on 18.05.2022. Thereafter, Application for Review was filed.

¶26

5. Opposition is filed by the Respondent Bank in DRT stating that the Review Application is not maintainable. No ground for review of the order is made out. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. All the grounds relates to the merit of the matter. It is stated that the

¶27

¶28

Learned DRT has also heard the S.A. while hearing the I.A.s. Accordingly, impugned order was passed.

¶29

6. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, Learned DRT placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union versus Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another (2005) 13 SCC 777. It was also held that the S.A. was not heard, rather I.As. were heard and the S.A. was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. It is a case of procedural irregularities wherein Review application is maintainable. Accordingly, Learned DRT allowed this Review Application and set aside the judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 passed in S.A. No. 205 of 2015.

¶30

7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Appellant Bank preferred the Appeal. 8. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank would submit that the impugned judgment suffers from material illegality and irregularity. There is no procedural irregularity in disposal of the S.A. Judgment was delivered on merits of the case. The reliefs in the I.A.s are in the nature of the same relief which were sought in the SARFAESI Application. Hearing of the S.A. was also conducted. No grounds for review are made out.

¶31

10. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Learned DRT has passed the impugned judgment allowing the review application in accordance with

¶32

¶33

law. There were procedural irregularities committed by the Learned DRT while passing the judgment in S.A. on 29.03.2022. It is submitted that the hearing of S.A. was not conducted by the Learned DRT Rather, only I.A.s were heard. The matter was listed on 25.04.2022 but was preponed to 29.03.2022. Without notice to the parties the judgment was delivered. Judgment was not uploaded till 1^st April, 2022. Respondents herein filed the Review Application in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in C.O. No. 1134 of 2022. Review Petition was legally maintainable.

¶34

11. Rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provides the provisions for Review which reads as under:

¶35

(5-A, Review. – (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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(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:

¶38

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.]

¶39

12. Reliance has been placed upon Para No. 18 of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon a judgment in Grindlays Bank Ltd.

¶40

¶41

versus Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606

¶42

wherein it was held that -

¶43

“Furthermore, different considerations arise on review. The expression ‘review’ is used in the two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi case held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal.”

¶44

13. On the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the instant review petition is a procedural review which is inherent in the Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misappropriation by it.

¶45

14. The core issues to be decided in this Appeal are -

¶46

(i) As to whether Review Application filed by the Respondent was legally maintainable or not?

¶47

(ii) Whether the provisions of Rule 5-A of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 covers the field?

¶48

Rule 5A of DRT Procedure Rules, 1993 reads as under:

¶49

[5-A. Review . – (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.

¶50

(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.

¶51

(3) Where it appears to the Tribunal that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application [but where the

¶52

¶53

Tribunal is of opinion that the application] for review shall be granted, it shall grant the same:

¶54

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.]

¶55

15 . Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:

¶56

Review – Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

¶57

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

¶58

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

¶59

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

¶60

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,

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

(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.

¶64

[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.]

¶65

¶66

17. Admittedly, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not fully applicable in the proceedings under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Further, when there are specific provisions for review in the DRT (Procedure) Rules,1993, then the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the question of review would not apply.

¶67

18. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax officer (1) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 decided on 31^st October 2023, 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-

¶68

“9. In the words of Hon’ble Krishna Iyer J., (as his Lordship this 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.”

¶69

19. Reliance was also placed upon Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845 wherein it was held that-

¶70

“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.”

¶71

20. Reliance was also placed upon Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri

¶72

Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 wherein it was held that –

¶73

“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

¶74

¶75

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

¶76

21. 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-

¶77

“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.”

¶78

22. Reliance was placed on R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law and held that:-

¶79

“ 15 . 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.”

¶80

16. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of coordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

¶81

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

¶82

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

¶83

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶84

(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.

¶85

(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.

¶86

¶87

(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.”

¶88

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

¶89

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

¶90

(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. (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.”

¶91

24. A bare perusal of Rule (5-A) of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 demonstrates that a review is only maintainable on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. These are the only two grounds wherein a review application can be filed under the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Although scope of review under the provisions of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is larger in comparison to the provisions of Rule (5-A) of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Under CPC, Review can be filed on a ground of (i) discovery of new and important matters on 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 (ii) order on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or (iii) for any other sufficient reasons.

¶92

25. As far as powers of Review under DRT (Procedure) Rules,1993 are concerned, it is confined to only some mistake or error on the face of record. Hence, it can safely

¶93

¶94

be inferred that a scope of review under CPC is much larger than the scope of review under DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Accordingly, ground under the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 for review would be some mistake or error on the face of record. As far as mistake is concerned, mistake relates to a mistake which is typographical or arithmetical. In no case, any mistake touching the merits of the case can be taken into consideration at the time of reviewing an earlier order passed by the DRT.

¶95

26. 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.

¶96

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

¶97

¶98

28. 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 –

¶99

“ 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:

¶100

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

¶101

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) Any other sufficient reason.

¶102

(iv)

¶103

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.

¶104

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.

¶105

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 Ranm (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.”

¶106

29. Now we have to see as to whether the Learned DRT has rightly passed the impugned order reviewing its earlier

¶107

¶108

judgment or committed patent illegality in reviewing the judgment?

¶109

30. Learned DRT held that there was procedural mistake committed by the DRT at the time of passing the judgment which requires review of the judgment.

¶110

31. Original judgment was passed in S.A. No. 205 of 2015 on 29.03.2022 by the Learned DRT-1 Kolkata. C.O. No. 1134 of 2022 was filed before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court has recorded that –

¶111

“Mr. Basu wants to prefer appeal or review, as per his choice under the provisions of the law, so as to challenge the order impugned in this case, and proposes for granting some interim protection till the date of filing such proposed application before the Court concerned.”

¶112

32. It was further held that –

¶113

“without going into the details, let there be an order directing stay of operation of the impugned judgment, dated 29^th March, 2022 passed in S.a. No. 205 of 2015 of Learned Judge-in-charge, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata or a period of fifteen (15) days from hence, simply to file the proposed application, as per choice of petitioners, within such time (15 days).

¶114

It is further clarified that if any such application, as referred hereinbefore, is filed before the Court concerned, with a prayer for stay, the same may be decided afresh independently in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order made by this Court.”

¶115

33. Judgment was passed on 18.05.2022. But the SARFAESI Applicant did not choose to file the Appeal. Rather, they prefer the review petition mainly on the ground that the Learned Presiding Officer did not hear the SARFAESI application. Rather, hearing was made on I.A.s but without notice to the SARFAESI Applicant, the judgment was

¶116

¶117

delivered on 29.03.2022 while the date was fixed for 25.04.2022.

¶118

34. I.A. No. 291 of 2022 was filed for hearing and disposal of I.A. No. 2385 of 2021 while I.A. No. 336 of 2022 was filed challenging the sale Notice dated 10.02.2022 and the sale fixed on 28.02.2022. These I.A.s were heard on 25.02.2022. On 01.03.2022, Learned Counsel for the SARFAESI Applicant and the Bank were heard at length and matter was posted for 09.03.2022. Hearing was done on 09.03.2022 and the matter was reserved for orders. Thereafter, on 24.03.2022 matter was listed for 25.04.2022. On 29.03.2022, judgment was delivered wherein date was pre-poned from 25.04.2022 to 29.03.2022 and judgment was delivered.

¶119

35 . A perusal of the I.A.s would show that all the I.A.s and Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would reveal that all the grounds taken in the SARFAESI Application were reproduced in both the I.A.s which were duly heard by the Learned DRT and judgment was delivered on 29.03.2022. In the SARFAESI Application the ground for challenge under the SARFAESI Act were mentioned in Para No. 32 wherein notice dated 22.06.2015 and 24.06.2015 were challenged. In the relief clause notice dated 22.06.2015 and 24.06.2015 were under challenge with a consequential relief that steps taken on 22.09.2015 be also set aside. In the I.A.s also similar grounds were taken although with pendentelite developments which were

¶120

¶121

undertaken by the Bank. A perusal of the order sheets would reveal that I.A.s were heard along with the S.A.

¶122

36. As far as delivery of judgment on 29.03.2022 is concerned, no doubt date was fixed on 25.04.2022 but the same was pre poned. It was a simple procedural aspect wherein on the date of delivery of judgment, no hearing has to be taken. Accordingly, preponement of date for delivery of judgment in no way prejudices the rights of the parties as hearing had already been concluded. It can, at the most, be said to be an irregularity only.

¶123

37. Hon’ble High Court had granted liberty to the SARFAESI Applicants either to file a review petition or appeal as they wish. SARFAESI Applicants opted to file the Review petition. They did not choose to file any appeal against the judgment dated 29.03.2022. Judgment dated 29.03.2022 was passed on merits after offering an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶124

38. No procedural irregularity could be shown by the SARFAESI Applicants. Hon’ble Apex Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) has placed reliance upon Grindlays Bank Ltd. versus Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, 1980 Supp 225 420 wherein in that case Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon Patel Narshi Thakershi versus Pradyumansinghiji Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844 wherein it was held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. Previously when a review is sought due to a procedural mistake, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito

¶125

¶126

justitiae to provide the abuse of its process and such powers inheres in every Court or Tribunal. As far as statutory powers of review are concerned, as provided under Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 wherein review can only be made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

¶127

39 . As far as statutory review is concerned, no error apparent on the face of record could be shown by the SARFAESI Applicants which makes out a case for review. As far as procedural defect is concerned, the ground taken by the SARFAESI Applicants for review does not borne out from the records. Judgment dated 29.03.2022 was passed after offering an opportunity of hearing to the SARFAESI Applicants. Detailed judgment on merits was passed by Learned DRT. Judgment was delivered after preponing the date which cannot said to be an illegality.

¶128

40. Accordingly, there was no procedural error in passing the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2022 by the Learned DRT. Accordingly, SARFAESI Applicants cannot take any advantage of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra).

¶129

41. On the basis of discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that no case for review could be made out by the SARFAESI Applicants. Learned DRT erred in passing the impugned judgment reviewing the judgment in S.A. No. 205 of 2015. Learned DRT erred in allowing R.A. No. 04 of 2022. Impugned judgment dated 24.08.2023

¶130

¶131

passed by Learned DRT-1 Kolkata is liable to be set aside. Appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

¶132

ORDER

¶133

Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Learned DRT-1 Kolkata in R.A. No. 04 of 2022 arising out of S.A. No. 205 of 2015 (Shri Bihariji cold Rollers Private Ltd. and others versus State Bank of India and others) is set aside. Consequently, R.A. No. 04 of 2022 stands dismissed.

¶134

No Order as to costs.

¶135

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶136

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

¶137

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

¶138

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8^th day of October, 2024.

¶139

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson