The DRT Kolkata Bench dismissed an appeal filed by the State Bank of India against the Tribunal's dismissal of its review application. The Chairperson held the appeal was not maintainable as the review order was passed on merits without apparent error, citing the Malleeswari judgment distinction between review and appeal.
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 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Appl. No. 10 of 2020
(Arising out of R.A. 02 of 2019 in S.A. 187 of 2016 – DRT-I Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
18.11.2025
State Bank of India, RACPC, 2nd floor, CCPL, Sterling Building, Himayathnagar Main Road, Hyderabad -500029.
--Vs--
1(a). Chennuri Vimala,
1(b). Chennuri Subha Sree,
Residing at Plot No.91, Near Panchamuka Anjareya Temple, Naasimha Rao Nagar, Vanathalipuram, Hyderabad – 500070.
3(a). Smt. S. Umarani 3(b). S.Arunoday, 3(c). S. Gayathri,
Residing at Plot No. 376/2, H.No. 5-4-1299/1, Phase-3, Road 35, Sharadha Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad – 500070,
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Debasish Chakraborty , ld. adv. For Respondent : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. Adv.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by learned DRT-I Hyderabad in R.A. No. 02 of
2019 arising out of S.A. No. 187 of 2016 [State Bank of India Vs.
Sri Chennuri Muralidhar & Ors.] whereby learned DRT partly
2 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
allowed the Review application (RA 02 of 2019) only to the extent
of incorporating two sentences in the order dated 25.01.2019 –
one, “The applicant relied on the following citations” and other
“The Respondent Bank relied on the following citations.”
herein, availed financial assistance from the appellant bank, repayment of which was irregular, as such, loan account became NPA. Appellant bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings by issuing Sec. 13(2) notice followed by the possession notice dated 28.04.2016. Secured asset was auctioned by the bank to the successful auction purchaser, who is respondent no.2 herein, by issuing e-auction sale notice dated 09.05.2016 fixing sale date on
17.06.2017. Successful auction purchaser thereafter transferred
the secured asset to third party, respondent no.3.
payment of Rs.5.00 lakh by the securitization applicant borrower.
Since the securitization applicant failed to deposit Rs.5.00 lakh,
3 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
bank confirmed the auction sale and issued sale certificate, which
was registered in favour of the auction purchaser. S.A. 187 of 2016 was filed by the applicant, which was dismissed by the learned DRT vide order dated 27.12.2017.
2018 against the order dated 27.12.2017 before the DRAT, Kolkata which was allowed and the matter was remanded back for de-novo hearing to learned DRT. DRAT, Kolkata observed that
reserve price was not fixed on the basis of valuation report.
187 of 2016 on 25.01.2019 by setting aside the auction sale and
sale certificate and directed bank to refund the sale proceeds to
the auction purchaser with 12% interest.
reviewing the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in S.A. under Rule 5-A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 read with Section 22(g) and (h) of the RDB Act, 1993. The review application No. 02 of 2019 was partly allowed by the learned DRT only to the extent of incorporating two sentences (supra) in the order against which review was sought. However, order dismissing the auction sale
4 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
and refund of sale proceeds to the auction purchaser were not reviewed or amended.
bank preferred the instant appeal praying for setting aside the impugned order.
the records.
sale notice was issued in accordance with law after obtaining valuation report from the approved valuer dated 03.05.2016. Securitization applicant was given opportunity to deposit Rs.5.00 lakh, subject to such payment, bank was directed not to proceed
with the auction sale. Since securitization applicant failed to pay Rs.5.00 lakh, bank proceeded with the auction sale and auctioned
the secured asset to the successful auction purchaser. Sale certificate was issued and registered in favour of auction purchaser. SARFAESI proceedings came to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.
application for review of the impugned order was not legally
5 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
maintainable. Impugned Order dated 11.06.2019 was passed on
merit and was partly allowed only to the extent of incorporating
two innocuous sentences (supra). Learned DRT does not make
any review or amendment in the observation recorded in the order dated 25.01.2019 that auction sale process was not in accordance of law whereby auction sale conducted by the bank
was set aside and bank was directed to refund sale proceed to the auction purchaser. Curiously, the order dated 25.01.2019
was not challenged by the bank by preferring appeal. However,
an application for reviewing the order under Rule 5-A of the Rules was filed. Argument was also placed that in view of the provision
of Order 47 Rule 7 CPC appeal is not maintainable against
dismissal review application.
concerned, Hon’ble Apex Court in Standard Chartered Bank
Vs. MSTC Ltd. [(2020) 13 CC 618] has held in para 22 and 23 as
under:
“We are also of the view that the High Court wrongly applied Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XLVII Rule 7 states as follows:
(1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the
6 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.
(2) Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when such application was called on for hearing, the Court shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same.
(3) No order shall be made under sub-rule (2) unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.
Section 22(1) of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, making it clear thereby that Order XLVII Rule 7 would not apply to the Tribunal. Also, in view of Section 20, which applies to all applications that may be made, including applications for review, and orders being made therein being subject to appeal, it is a little difficult to appreciate how Order XLVII Rule 7 could apply at all, given that Section 20 of the RDB Act is part of a complete and exhaustive code. Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that the 1993 Act, (and, therefore, Section 20), will have overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force, which includes the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, in holding that no appeal would be maintainable against the dismissal of the review petition, and that therefore a writ petition would be maintainable, was clearly in error on this count also.”
order of dismissal of the review application. Accordingly, I am of
the view that appeal filed by the appellant is legally maintainable.
2016 by setting the auction sale. Opposition was filed by the
bank, which was considered by the learned DRT and order was passed on 25.01.2019 after giving opportunity of hearing to either of the parties. When the order was not challenged by the
bank by preferring appeal, it attains finality.
7 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
against the order dated 11.06.2019 whereby learned DRT partly allowed the review application only to the extent of incorporating
two innocuous sentences (supra). As far as issue of review of the order dated 25.01.2019 is concerned, learned DRT has passed order on merit after considering the counter affidavit filed by the
bank. Further, as far as question of review/recall of the order is concerned, there is specific provision for review under the DRT
Procedure Rules, 1993. Rule 5A of the DRT Procedure Rules,
1993 reads as under :
08.09.2025 in Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna & Anr. [2025
SCC OnLine 1927] has held at Para 15 and 17 as under :
8 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
review of the courts. The power of review is different from 8 appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:
15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of 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.
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered.6 Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record.8 Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.
power of review can be exercised for the correction of mistake,
but not to substitute a view. Review can only be permissible on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record or any new fact which could not be produced at the time of
9 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
hearing after due diligence. Appellant bank failed to show any
mistake or error apparent on the face of the order dated 25.01.2019. Further, the bank in their counter affidavit has also
not placed reliance upon any mistake or error apparent in the order dated 11.06.2019. In such circumstances, appeal is filed
without any ground and is misconceived.
and having considered the submissions made by the parties, I am
of the considered view that instant appeal is not legally maintainable. This appeal against the dismissal of review application is filed in the garb of preferring an appeal against the dismissal of the S.A., which is not permissible in law. Moreover,
appellant bank failed to show any mistake or error apparent on
the face of the impugned order. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to
be dismissed.
O R D E R
learned DRT- I Hyderabad is confirmed. Costs easy.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
10 Reportable / Non-reportable Judgement reserved on 06.11.2025 Judgement pronounced on 18.11.2025
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the
open Court on this the 18th day of November, 2025.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated : 18.11.2025 /pkb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal is maintainable against an order dismissing an application for review of the Tribunal under Rule 5-A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
Whether the power of review under the RDB Act allows substitution of the Tribunal's view for a different view on merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Standard Chartered Bank vs. MSTC Ltd.Referred¶70
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. MSTC Ltd. [(2020) 13 CC 618]
Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna & Anr.Applied¶100
Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna & Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine 1927] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State Bank of India
Chennuri Vimala
Rageer Vasudev Yada
Smt. S. Umarani & Ors.
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
