In MA 34 of 2022, Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar dismissed the applicant's request to review an order dated 28.01.2022 in SA No.102/2021, holding that the applicant had already filed an appeal to the DRAT and made no error apparent on the face of the record.
The application for review/recall of the order dated 28.01.2022 was dismissed.
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.
09/01/2024 |
Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Order in MA 34 of 2022 In SA No.102/2021 Nirmala Krishna Sharma Vs. Canara Bank |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
Advocate B.S. Hunday, appeared for the Applicant. |
I | ||
| UMB Advocate Riya Sawla i/b O.A. Das and Associations, appeared for the Respondent. 1. By way of the present MA, the Applicant is praying to recall/review the order of this Tribunal dated 28.01.2022, and declare the same as null and void. |
|||
| RT1 M 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted the SA No.102/2021 was not ripe for hearing, pleadings were not complete, even the auction purchaser was not brought on the party array, and further it was adjourned to 21.02.2022 for hearing, however, this Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2022 dismissed the SA |
|||
on the ground that the same is not maintainable, thus, he prayed to review the order dated 28.01.2022 and declare the same as null and void. |
|||
| 3. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents strongly objected to the present |
1
| MA and submitted that there is no error in the |
|---|
| DRT1 MUMBAI order dated 28.01.2022 further, if the Applicant is aggrieved, they ought to have filed Appeal against the order. She also contended that after the order of this Tribunal in the SA, the Applicant herein filed a civil suit before the Bombay Civil City Court being Suit (St) No.7484/2023 which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2023 being not maintainable. Further, against the said order the Applicant has filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. She also submitted that since the Applicant has already challenged the order of this Tribunal therefore, the present MA is not maintainable. 4. Considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 5. By way of the present MA, the Applicant is seeking review/recall of the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.102/2021 thus, the present MA shall be taken as a review application filed by the Applicant herein. 6. According to the Applicant, an Appeal has already been preferred against the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by this Tribunal, the said submission the applicant has already |
2
made in para 28 of the Civil Suit No.7484/2023 which is extracted herein below: “28. The Plaintiff submits that while all the grievances,in respect of the aforesaid order have been raised by the Plaintiff through exercise of right of recall the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2022 by application before the said DRT which application is presently pending. Further, the Plaintiff has also moved an Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai on the question of the conduct and irregular procedure adopted by the learned DRT in not just disposing the interim application but the main securitization application as well…” (emphasis provided) 7. Thus, as the Applicant has already challenged the order dated 28.01.2022 before the Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai therefore, the present Application is only a forum hunting tactics of the Applicant.
3
| DRT1 MUMBAI 8. Even otherwise, the Applicant failed to raise any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record thus, there is no merit in the present MA hence, the same is hereby dismissed. File be closed and consigned to the record room. P.O. DRT-I sc |
|---|
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance of a revision application is barred when an appeal to the DRAT is already pending on the same order.
Whether the applicant has raised a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nirmala Krishna Sharma
Canara Bank
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
