The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata, dismissed a Motion Application under Section 22(9) of the Recovery Act which was essentially a review petition. The Tribunal held that the application lacked merit as no error apparent on the face of the record was found.
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
Debts Recovery Tribunal-3, Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)
| CaseNo.Ml/5l2tXr4 BengalDCLHouslng DevetopmentCo.t_ta,Vs. uCOgank&-Ors, |
|---|
| Orderwithsigniture OrderNo-5 ol.6/09/2024 sl.No.12 PresGnt: ForApplicants:LdCounselsMr,KChakraborUwithMr. SNag ForDef. Bank:LdCounsels Mr, Spal Choudhury and Mr.Kpatra andiMr. OMpChoudhury ForDef.2 :Ld CounselsMr.D Sahaand Mr.RBhattacharya |
| ThelnstantM.A. beingMANo.5of section 22(9) of theRecoveryo,o'o'o t"'"t"ttoan applicationunder with sectionru**"o"i."",#ffi:: i::j:,j:::,ii;":::;J:. The app,lcationhasbeenpreferred rudeementand order.;,;;;;;r;":": 'ettinsasrdeoftheex-parte 58,91_a7rl- 2024 wherebyacertificateofRs**, A,91,a77/-alongwithinterestt-'.rlrEU'o ln . Derendants,r,a,;n,;"o;.";;;:,ff """ passedasainstarthe |
| 8**,21,s52-plusaoditionarinterest.rtis-.;;:.';;",T#r:tff :. Itis statedthatsuch Judgementand theDefendant,".; ;il;". ;,;order was passed ex_parteasainst Judsementandord'a;lr;;v; rsalso statedthatintermsorthe of2024 hacha6-.,,^r. arecovery casebeingRCNo. 94* s beenfiledbeforethe -ilev'srv Ld5 o l aeainsttheDefenc,ant "".;;r",;;":-"::ry officer andrtsproceedine :.:":-::i:'n"'"'' o""l' "o l';1#:?::#;:Tf:T:",:.: LompanyoftheStateofWestBenoi diverseprojects,",r;;; ";,i".]rt:r andithassuccessrurrv compreted is statedthat,n";";;;"; "J. 'r":"1,""0",.ooutsiderhjsstate.rt purchaseofa &2approachedthePetitioner for faresidential unitandth€ n erant creditracirityror.;;;;r;;-1":""t Bankasreedtorinance or agreementwasexec*"d"rlrourralT Intermsthereofatripartite 2'theApplicantt"r; ;;'#;.:13 betw€entheDerendantsNo1& deveropment"n."";";;,;;"oro',,Jjt't'on"t-o"'"roper'rnvieworthe z.-canonry havetheright,n.""r"a,ot Bankand theDefendantsNo.1& )'Froorofrowprrv fthe resldentialFlat No,sotonthe stht e rv",,",,,",",-" ",,:;::il":tll;::h:}T:". On21/02/2024whentheDefendant andordero.r.o,rlorlirorllr'"".^""'on'o"er got theJudgement also beenpassed;;;"'ffi;'rprised toseethatthe decreehas Defendantr". ";;;;";,.';;:';:::", No.3/petitionerarthouehthe alleqedthatrhan-.^-,----. 'rrowerin the instantcase.Itisalso g theDefendantNo.3/pe "'"Err' G sel paymentofhis lastinstament.,n..t'l'ln"t isstillentitledtowardsthe a 7.gs7t hr,,.-rr:-, March27',20180fasumofRs. |
| 3/Petitioner asoftoday is entitledtohaveaclaimofRs22,01,221/-on |
|---|
| accountofprincipleandinterestandothercharges includlnglast installmentduesfromtheDefendantsNo.1&2.DefendantNo' 3/Petitionerhasprayedfor setting aside/recall/suitablemodification ofthe ludgementand OrderdatedLgt1l/2024passedon O.A.No'926of 2017' |
| LdCounselappearingfor theDefendantsNo2 has opposedthePetitioner andhasarguedthatthereis noapparentreasonto setasidetheex-parte Judgementand Orderdated1gl}ll2)24passedbythis Tribunal'ltisalso arquedthatacertlficateofRs' 58,91'871/-alongwithinteresthasbeen passedagainstalltheDefendants includingthe present Petitioner' whois apromoter and developer ofthe projectinquestion' |
| LdCounselappearingfor theDefendantNo2 also arguedthatthereisno ".a. uoour"n,onthefactofrecordinpassingtheex-parteludgement andOrderdated19/01/2024wherebya certiflcateofRs58'91871/ "ii^t*ttinteresthasbeen passedagainstall theDefendants including thePresentPetitioner' Ld Lawyerappearinsfor theApplicant'""1'"(."i]l^l'.1.::::1H :il::,.";::ffi:;:;:::1t":::t,::i::J';::J:::Til1T: nravedfordismissaloftheM A ar 'rnln",.",o"'"nt"d beforetheRecoveryBench' Ihavesonethroushthecase record""-l-t:l'^.-";ilt.llilli;I gonern u e,,!ii! '--- No.3/petitioner,theDeve oper- appearsthatadmittedrv.*:::::tJ;";;it"a uppeu,edbutdid not BenearDCLHousinsoeveropmen:::X#;;;;lur","0u,u,",r.o fitewrittenstatement""0 n1t.""tr;";"r";""o".ror 2or3. counterevidenceisadducedbyI ----- |
Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioner in fact in filing the instant M.A. has sought for review of the decisions made in order dated |9/OL/2O24 passed by this Tribunal. MA application, as I think nothing but basicalty an application for review _ In a civil procedure an application for review would be entertained only on the ground mentioned in order XLVU Rule 1 of the Code of Cavil procedure and in a Criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record. Review cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law is that a party is not entifled to seek review of judgement by the court merely for the purpose of some fresh decision of tf,e .a.e. fne no|.rnat princlple is that a judgement prono 1":".n,1"u",",r"; r;;;;;;,;,1# JTr::'J.j#:,::j ;"1 substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so' so the law laid down .nr", ., r" ,""."."!E' An error which is not self_evident anc reaso ning,nino .in can hardly be said h--r,.. L . to br , has to be '!!E!!cu detected by uv a process of record justifying ""."r an error apparent on the face of rhe jurisdiction unde;;;';;T'::: ""r"..1 't: power or review. In exercise or is. not permissib,e that a finar once decision given. to ue.er,"a.a ";J;#;t.,, A review cannot repair the verdict lA iudgement is open to review ar .".:, inter-ar,a, if there rs a mistake or "" "... "r;";;,'; ;::,:' pronounced o, ,n" aorn -.nrro"." "1", ,r' r"l; . 'l:t"-t" of the record. A judgement ':r"n:.from that principrers justifred onry "n"" ol-u character make ,, "".;.:;;';;"':. "o',un,,u,and comperine and has to be detected tt An error whrch is not se rt f-eviden ti ll "" o,^'^.^-^] "r-r.l -"hardry be said to be an error apparent ", ,r;;;J;.::i::::::.': or rev,ew. the court to exercise ts l)-ower ^.""J;;;;:l'l]l'ry,] ;:ffi :.:".":i jTil:]:TT",:ff"L:';::::;:i":J:,,l" petitioner cannot be permitted ," lt- - :'t* the guise of revrew, th€ which have arready b;;";; ff:::I."""n0'"ntr," q,"stion. I do not find ilty €rror 6pp61p61 a ccordinotv rc^,-"-lrrlon -:the r f ace of th c .--^-e record, and ccordinglv, I find no merit in the ;.,:ron under drsposar. Hence ordered
.,;[**;::.,;:1ffi ni#.",TffiT ( Kamal De ) Presiding Officer OAf-:, fot*aii
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application seeking review of an ex-parte judgment filed under Section 22(9) of the Recovery Act constitutes a proper review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Whether an error apparent on the face of the record justifies setting aside a final ex-parte judgment passed against a petitioner who was a promoter.
Whether the applicant is entitled to seek review merely for a fresh decision without a substantial and compelling character of error.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Debt Recovery Tribunal-3, Kolkata
Bengal DCL Housing Development Co.
Kamal De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
