Dismissed

Vishal S. Doshi v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT9 Sept 2022MA/46/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT dismissed a maintenance application seeking recall/review of a previous order held to be time-barred. The court noted insufficient court fee and reliance on Supreme Court precedent stating the Tribunal has no power to condone review delays.

What did the court decide?

The maintenance application seeking review/recall of the order dated 19/04/2022 was dismissed.

09/09/2022	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr.Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in MA 46 of 2022* *Vishal S. Doshi Vs JM Financial Asset* *Reconstruction Co. Ltd*	Next date
		Advocate for the applicant is present. Advocate Ms. Ishita Advani i/b Desai & Diwanji appeared for the respondent. Today the matter is listed for order on the present MA. 1. By way of the present MA the applicant is seeking recall/review order dated 19/04/2022 passed in interim application no. 489/2017 and passed appropriate order after considering the prevailing provision stipulated in the IBC. 2. While dictating the order of the present MA it reveals that the applicant of the MA in the garb of the present MA seeking review/recall of the order of this Tribunal in a disposed off matter. 3. Record reveals that sufficient court fee has not been paid therefore, the present review application is not maintainable. 4. Even otherwise present MA is filed on 02/08/2022 and in the MA the applicants are seeking recall / review of order dated 19/04/2022 which was dictated in open court, thus, as such the present MA / review is not within the statutory period of 30 days as stipulated under Rule 5 A of the DRT, Rules, 1993.

09/09/2022

Ex.
No.

Before Presiding Officer Dr.Rekha G.
Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai.
Roznama in MA 46 of 2022
Vishal S. Doshi Vs JM Financial Asset
Reconstruction Co. Ltd

Next
date

Advocate for the applicant is present.
Advocate Ms. Ishita Advani i/b Desai &
Diwanji appeared for the respondent.
Today the matter is listed for order on the
present MA.
1. By way of the present MA the applicant
is seeking recall/review order dated
19/04/2022
passed
in
interim
application no. 489/2017 and passed
appropriate order after considering the
prevailing provision stipulated in the
IBC.
2. While dictating the order of the present
MA it reveals that the applicant of the
MA in the garb of the present MA
seeking review/recall of the order of this
Tribunal in a disposed off matter.
3. Record reveals that sufficient court fee
has not been paid therefore, the present
review application is not maintainable.
4. Even otherwise present MA is filed on
02/08/2022
and
in
the
MA
the
applicants are seeking recall / review of
order dated 19/04/2022 which was
dictated in open court, thus, as such the
present MA / review is not within the
statutory period of 30 days as stipulated
under Rule 5 A of the DRT, Rules, 1993.

According to applicants the order was uploaded on 01/07/2022 even from that
date also the present application is
beyond the limitation.
5. It is also important to note here that 01/08/2022 the applicants themselves
requested that the matter may be disposed off as application for personal insolvency is filed against the defendant
No. 2 to 4. At that time the applicants did not file an application for review of order dated 19/04/2022. The matter was ultimately disposed off vide order dated
01/08/2022 and thereafter on
02/08/2022 the applicants filed the present application.
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Standard
Chartered Bank v. MSTC has
categorically held that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in review application.
7. Admittedly the applicants herein by way the present MA seeking review of order dated 19/04/2022 whereas the present MA is filed on 02/08/2022 thus, same is beyond the limitation, hence, dismissed.
File be closed and confined to record. Sd/- P.O. DRT-I Pnd/-2

According to applicants the order was
uploaded on 01/07/2022 even from that

date also the present application is

beyond the limitation.

5. It is also important to note here that
01/08/2022 the applicants themselves

requested that the matter may be
disposed off as application for personal
insolvency is filed against the defendant

No. 2 to 4. At that time the applicants
did not file an application for review of
order dated 19/04/2022. The matter was
ultimately disposed off vide order dated

01/08/2022
and
thereafter
on

02/08/2022 the applicants filed the
present application.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Standard

Chartered
Bank
v.
MSTC
has

categorically held that this Tribunal has
no power to condone the delay in review
application.

7. Admittedly the applicants herein by way
the present MA seeking review of order
dated 19/04/2022 whereas the present
MA is filed on 02/08/2022 thus, same is
beyond the limitation, hence, dismissed.

File be closed and confined to record.
Sd/-
P.O.
DRT-I
Pnd/-2

Vishal S. Doshi v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal S. Doshi v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narcinva Damodar Naik versus Canara Bank

Smt Meera Rukmana Dongare versus Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited

Indian Bank versus Ckp Products Limited

State Bank of India versus Dinesh

State Bank of India versus Mallikarjun

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Badrinath Constructions