The Tribunal disposed of a misc. application seeking review of a contested order dated 27/04/2023. It held the petition not maintainable under the RDB Act and made the applicants file an appeal instead.
Misc. Application 9 of 2023 dismissed on contest; interim order dated 26/07/2023 vacated.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA
Order Sheet
Case No.MA 9/2023 UCO Bank –vs- Ganapati Exports Ltd. & Ors. (TA/61/96) Office action with Date of date and dated Order with Signature Signature of the Order Parties whennecessary
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA
| 19/12/202 3 |
Ld. Advocate Mr. Souritra Ganguli alongwith Mr. D. Basu Roy and Mr. S.K. Kasera appear for the Misc. Applicant. |
|---|---|
| Ld. Advocate Mr. S.N. Patra Bhatta appeared for the Respondents. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties on 26/07/2023. |
|
| Misc. Applicant/Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 have filed an | |
| application under section 22 (e) of the Recovery of Debts and | |
| Bankruptcy Act (hearing after references too and the act) for modification of order dated 27/4/2023 passed in MA/14/2015. |
|
| For modification/ recall of order dated 27/4/2023 Ld. Counsel for | |
| the Applicant Bank objected to the review petition that it is not | |
| maintainable. The applicants have filed application for review of | |
| the order on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pradip Chandra Parija and Ors. V/s Pramod |
|
| Chandra Patnaik and Ors reported in (2002) 1 SCC 1, Chandra | |
| Prakash and Anr. v/s State of U.P and Anr. reported in (2002) 4 | |
| SCC 234 and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and | |
| Anr. v/s State of Maharashtra and Anr. Reported in (2005) 2 SCC | |
| 673 to the Supreme Court cases. The Defendants submitted that | |
| the Original Application no. 543 of 2018 UCO Bank Vs. Ganapati | |
| Exports Ltd. and Ors. is not maintainable. The said OA was | |
| originally registered as TA No. 61 of 1996. It was decreed on |
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA
Exparte on 12/09/2014. On 19/01/2015, by inspection the Applicants came to know that UCO Bank has filed a suit before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in C.S. No. 694 of 1986 which was subsequently transferred to DRT and registered as TA No. 61 of 1996 and the said TA was decreed against the Defendants. The Applicants filed an application being no. MA 14 of 2015 challenging the Exparte order dated 12/09/2014 in TA 61 of 1996. The said order dated 27/04/2023 was passed due to mistake on the face of record and the applicant has relied some authorities.
The Ld. Advocate for the respondent Bank strongly objected for review of the application that is MA 9 of 2023, as the similar Application in MA 14 of 2022 has been dismissed on contest by order dated 27/04/2023.
Section 22 (g) provides for setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte; But order dated 27/04/2023 is not passed on Exparte. Even application may not be treated under section 22 (2) (E) for review of decision, for review of any decision order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code is to be followed. As for the provision of Section 22 (2) of the RDB Act,1993, any judgment or order can be reviewed on discovery of new of evidence which was not within
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA
the knowledge of the applicant or some mistake on the base of the record. Order dated 27/04/2023 has been passed on contest. The applicants can challenge order dated 27/04/2023 by appeal and not by review. Therefore, MA 9 of 2023 is dismissed on contest against the Defendants. The interim order dated 26/07/2023 by which the Recovery Officer-2 was directed to wait in respect of the recovery proceeding is vacated. sp (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed under section 22 of the RDB Act is maintainable against a contested order passed on merits.
Whether the impugned order can be challenged by review rather than appeal.
Whether Section 22(g) applies to orders passed on contest rather than ex parte dismissal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pradip Chandra Parija and Ors. V/s Pramod Chandra Patnaik and OrsReferred¶5
(2002) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Chandra Prakash and Anr. v/s State of U.P and AnrReferred¶5
(2002) 4 SCC 234 · Who else cites this
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. v/s State of Maharashtra and AnrReferred¶5
(2005) 2 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
UCO Bank
Ganapati Exports Ltd.
Misc. Applicant/Defendant
Ambuja Mohan Das
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
