Allowed

Mr Arun Kumar M v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT11 Jul 2024RA/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, allowed a review application. The Tribunal held that the dismissal of a prior securitization application was an error apparent on the face of the record because it overlooked a Supreme Court order extending limitation periods due to the pandemic, thereby granting the petitioner relief to have the matter re-adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Review Application allowed; Impugned final order set aside; Securitization Application restored to file; Hearing fixed for 12.08.2024.

Mr Arun Kumar M versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2024)

¶1

I s/ a-2./2ffi-'1

¶2

-d-.^'-^{Fle-.4r''^-t-}

R<, o?-/7'oz'3

-^o1*"

1s.02.2024

Review Petitioner and Respondent Bank^is present.

¶7

Heard both the learned Counsels.

¶8

For orders, list the matter on 28.03.2024.

¶9

iding Officer

¶10

28.03.2024

¶11

for want^of n. tfr. f.itunut^{was busywith other} "vorks' ro 11.07'2024' . ,*.. "O:*rn.d

¶12

Presilng^officer

¶13

Lt.07.2024.

¶14

RA 212023^{is allowedas per theseparateorderpassed} iJuy. fe^{Nos.895/2023and 1065t2023 areclosed' The} frnuiora".^{dated31.03.2023is set aside SA32512022is} restored^{to file. Partieson both sides aredirectcd to} appear^{beforethe Tribunal for hearing on12} \2024' r'

¶15

Presidirig^Officer

¶16

¶17

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶18

PRESENT: Szu IMTI AZ ALI

¶19

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶20

Dated the I lth day of July,2024

¶21

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 325 OF 2022

¶24

Between

¶25

Arun Kumar, S/o Marisonnappa, l00,4th Main, Amarajyothi Layout, R T Nagar, Bangalore, ' Karnataka - 560032.

¶26

Review Petitioner/Applicant

¶27

And

¶28

l. Kotak Mahindra Bank, having its registered office at C27, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 and branch among other places at 22, Ground Floor, Kotak House, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560001 represented by its President.

¶29

Arun Shelters Private Limited, . represented by CA Sripriya Kumar, Resolution Professional. 224A, (New No.346/l), Next to National Public School, Awai Shanmygam Salei, Gopalapuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600086.

¶30

G Kishan, 946, l6th Cross, I Phase, I Stage, Chandra Layout, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560040.

¶31

...... Respondents/defendants

¶32

¶33

RA N0.2/2023 in SA No.32512022

¶34

This Review Application having been heard on 15.02.2024 in the presence of Advocates lws Ankita Paul, Amrita Jain and Aakash Raman Sinha for the review petitioneriapplicant and Advocates iws Nikhilesh Rao, v J Achalanand, Trimurthi B s, Gdnapathy M S, Tamarra Sequeira, Avinash Balakrishna, Anarghya K C and Aditya Sethi for the 1't respondent/l^st defendant, and respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 being absent, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Review Application No.2/2023 was filed on 26.04.2023 under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) - for short 'the Rules' - r/w 5.17(7) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction and Financial Institutions Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time) - for short 'the Act, - praying to review and set aside the final order dated 31.03.2023 in SA 325/2022.

¶37

The case set out b)' the review pet itioner/applicant in the memorandum accompanying RA No.2/2023 in brief is as follows:- Aggrieved by the sale held on 23.11.2021 by the l't respondent/l't defendant in favour of the 3.d respondenV3'd defendant in respect of the schedule immovable property, the petitioner/applicant on 20.05.2022 filed SA 325/2022 under S.l7(l) of the Act before this Tribunal praying to set aside the sale. However, this Tribunal as per the final order dated 31.03.2023 dismissed the said application as barred by limitation. The observation of the Tribunal is an error apparent on the face ofthe records in the SA.

¶38

The l't respondent/l't defendant filed a statement of objection submitting as follows:- The review application is not maintainable. A review can be entertained only to correct the clerical error or mistake which is apparent on the face of the record. Review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

¶39

¶40

under the present review is seeking for substituting the view taken by the :fr"rr,

¶41

RA No.2/2023 in SA No.32512022

¶42

Tribunal which is impermissible in law. on the above contentions, the I't respondent/ I^st defendant prayed for dismissal ofthe review application.

¶43

The 2nd respondent/2d defendant filed a memo on 20.07.2023 stating that the Hon'ble National company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench vide order dated 04.11.2022 approved the resolution plan and sripriya Kumar stands discharged as the resolution professional.

¶44

The 3d respondent/3d defendant though entered appearance through counsel and filed vakalath did not file any statement ofobjection.

¶45

6' lhe onry point arises tbr consideration is as to whether the review petitioner/applicant is entitled to the reliefprayed for?

¶46

The Point:- The review petitioner/applicant filed sA 32512022 rnder s.l7(l) of the Act on 20.05.2022 aggrieved by the sale held on 23.11.2021 by the lsr rcspoDdcnt,/l't defendant in favour of the 3.d respondent/3rd defendant in respect of the schedule immovable property. As per the limitation period stipulated under s.17(1) ofthe Act, an application thereunder challenging the sale held on 23.11.2021 ought to have been presented before this Tribunal on or before 07 .01.2022 but the same happened to be filed on 20.05.2022 with a delay of 133 days in filing the same. The said SA was dismissed as per the final order dated 31.03.2023. The operative portion ofthe said final order reads as below:-

¶47

. "Appellant hos not filed any apprigation for condonation of deray in fring rhe seclttitizorion application challenging the auction sale conducted on 23. t t.zoz t by ti" 1", rispoidenibank. tt * ,iiiiria that the^qppellant has filed the sec'uritizqtion application on 20.'05.2022 aid the auction was held in 23 ll202l The appellant hos nor preferred th,e securitizqtion opplication within 45 days /rom tniaiiii the.auction sale^qnd there is a delay of more lhqn r32 days. Even lf the appeltant hadfled condonation if delay application, the Tribunal has no power to extend the period of timiiation on eiritabl" groinds an:d has no power lo ignore lhat provision to relieve what it considers a distress resultingfron its-operation as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in the matter of p K Ramachaniian t, sti of Kerola [reported^{in (1997) 7 SCC} 556], wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held thus:_

¶48

¶49

. "Low of limitation may harshly a/fect a particalar pqrty b ir has to be applied with all its rigor grounds. when the statute Hence, rhe so prescribes legal maxim and the courts have 'dura lex sed lex'which no powei means to ixtend 'the the law period is hari ofiinitata" oi but it is *e tonl "qritiit"stiii attrocted"

¶50

RA No.2/2023 in SA^No.32512022

¶51

Furthermore, in a special^{law when the statutealsodoes not arise. s.14(3) of theSARFAESIAcl} excludes the application^{of ie LimilationAct, 1963and that lhe statute does not giveexPresspowerlo the} DRTs to condone^delaY.

¶52

The Tribunql relies on^the iudgment^{of the Hon'bte Highcourt of Keralain the case titled K P} Jayan v Hong Kong^{& ShanghaiBankiigCorporationLtd and others decidedon i1.08.2015, whereinthe} Hin,hle Dn i-sion^{Benchhos categoricolh'helithat powerto condonedelayin entertqining an qpplicalion} under S.17 of the^{SARFAESTActis not conferred on theDebts Recovery Tribunal. It has funherheld that} the Debts Ricovery^{Tribunalcannot consideran application} for^{condonationof deltrl in dn application} under S.l7 of the SARFAESI^Act. fi" . oppntt*t lt is seen^has in^nor the )referred^{present single securitization applicalion, ieaboue mentionid securitization dpplication theappellanthas sought within nultiple the_-prescribedreliefs..} oerio)'of limitation witi respect^{to thequctionsqle conducted on 23.1 1.2021. Theappellantffirmsreceipt} 'oJ roticet issued by the t', iespondent bank under the Act, bul hqs not approached the Tribunal within the. iiulited period irescribed^{inder the Act.Therefore,the impugned auction sale qnd the qction of fie I't} ,iponder't bank^{pursuqnl lhercto cqnnotbe legally} fauked.^{Assuch, the appellanthasnotmqde} -oul any, gr:,ir,|1u, tnr"rlirence t!^{this lribunulJbrullowinS, theuppeol as prayed'Theappeol'therefore'fails and} is liable to be dismissed^{and is herebydismissed.''}

¶53

The review petitioner/applicant^{in paragraph IV of the SA under the head} .limitation' had declared that the application had been filed within the period of

¶54

limitation as permitted by^{the Hon'ble supremecourt.The averments readas below:-}

¶55

,'lt is submitted that the presenl application has been rtkd within the period of limitation prescribed under s.l7 of the Act. It^{is pertinentto poinl outlhat in view of the orderof the Hon'ble} 'supfeme court in the case of In Re : Cognizance lor Extension or Limitation (2022) 3 SCC I 17, the period fron^15.03.2020 -^{28.02.2022shall be excludedfor the purposeof linitation. Furthermore,the Supreme} "Court in the above decision hqs qlso directed thot in cqses where limitation would hqve expired between 15.03.2020 - 28.02.2022, all^{personsshall hwe an additional limitationperiodof 90 days fron} 01.03.2022. Hence, the^{present applicqtionis wellwilhin limitqtion. "}

¶56

The Hon'ble Supreme Court^{in In Re : Cosnizance.forExtensionof} Limitdtion freported in 2022(D ELTL]J-ISe taking into consideration the impact of the surge of covid viruses^{on public health and the adversities facedby the litigants} directed that the^period from^{15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022shallstand excludedfor the} purpose of limitation as may be^{pfescribed underanygeneral or special lawsin respect of} all^judicial or^{quasi-judicial proceedingsand that in caseswhere the limitation would} have expired during the^{period between 15.03.2020till28.02.2022,notwithstanding the} actual balance period of limitation^{remaining,all person shall havea limitationperiod of} 90 days from 01.03.2022,^{andthe relevantportion reads as below:-}

¶57

¶58

luLrttg uttg c1tuitlerulon^{the ufgumenrs udvuncedby counselund the impact of the surgeof the} virus on publii health and^qdversities faced^{by litiganls in the prevailing conditions,v,/e deem il} appropriite to dispose of the^{MANo.2 t of2022withthefollowing directions:Theorder dated 23.03.2020} isiesiored and in continlation ofthe^{subsequentorders dated08.03.2021,27.04.2021 and 2i.09.2021, it is} directed that the periodfron^{15.03.2020 ti\28.02.2022shall stand excluded} for^{the purposes oflirnitation} os may be prescribed under^{any generalor speciallaws in rcspectof all judicial or quasi-iudicial}

¶59

RA No.2/2023 in SA No.32512022

¶60

proceedings. Consequently, the balance period of limitotion remqining as on 03.10.2021, d any, shall become available with elfect from 01 .03.2022. ln cases where the limitqtion would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actuql bolance period of linitation reuuitirtg, ull pcrsotts shull lu,oe u linitulion period of 90 duys fron 01.03.2022. ln the event the actual balance period of limitation remdining, with efect from 0l .03.2022 is greqter thdn 90 dqys, that longet period shall apply. It is further clariJied that the period fron I 5.03.20920 ti 28.02.2022 shall also stand ucluded in computing the periods presoibed under 5s.23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.l2A of the Commerciql Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of 5.1i8 of ,he Negotiable lnstruuents Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for irctituting proceedings, outer limits (within which lhe court or tribunal con condone delcy) and termindtion of proceedings."

¶61

In view of the above direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner/applicant was entitled to present an application under S.17(l) of the Act aggrieved by the impugned sale dated 23 .1 1 .2021 on or before 30 .05 .2022 as the limitation (stipulated date of '07.01.2022') had expired during the period between 15.03.2020 artd 28.02.2022. However, he presented the same 0120.05.2022, well before such date prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the above circumstances, notwithstanding to the merits of the grounds urged by the petitioner/applicant in the application, the delay of 133 days in presenting the SA comes within the outer limit wfthin which this Tribunal can condone as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision supra. This went unnoticed of this Tribunal at the time of passing of the final order on 3l .03.2023 .

¶62

I 1. R.5A ofthe Rules deals with review of an order passed by the Tribunal on

¶63

account of some mistake or eror apparent on the face of the records, and it reads as

¶64

below:-

¶65

"(1) Ary party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error appqrent on the /ace of the record desires to obtain a review of the order made agairct hin, mry apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order. daie - of the (2) order and no No application such for application shall review shall be nade afler be entefiained the expiry unless ol it a is period accompanied o/ thirty by an days fron afidavitthe v erifying t he app I i cat i on.

¶66

(3) ll/herc it appears to tha Trihunql lhat lhere is no sulficient groundfor a review, it shall reject the application but where the Tribunal is of opinion thal the applicalionlor review should be granted, shall grunt lhe same.

¶67

PROVIDED that no such application shall be granted without previous notice lo the opposite parly to enable him lo appear and to be heard in support of the order, a reyiew ofwhich is appliedfor."

¶68

*.i"o.rrro, in sA No.325r2o22

¶69

¶70

1L. Going by R.sA of the^{Rules. any order passed by the Tribunal is liable to} be reviewed on account of^{some mistake or errorapparenton the faceof the record. Even} taking to the larger extent,^{O.47 R.l of the Codeof CivilProcedure, 1908 provides for} review of a Judgement^{on the grounds, namely:- (i) discovery of newand important} matter of evidence^{whichafter theexerciseof due diligence,was not withinthe} knowledge of the applicant^{or could not be producedby him at the time when the decree} wis^passed or order^{was made, or (ii) somemistake or enorapparent on the face of the} record; or^{(iii) for any othersufficientreason(whichhasbeeninterpreted to be analogous} to the other^{reasonsspecifiedabove).}

¶71

13.Accordingtothereviewpetitioner/applicant,theTribunaldismissedSA 32512022as^{per the final order dated 31.03.2023as barred by limitation without looking} into the direction^{issued by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in In Re : Cosnizancefor} Extension^{of Limitation} lreoorted^{in 2022(]| KLT 3]5 6C], whichhad been pleadedby} him in the limitation^{column. The only groundavailableas per R'5A of the Rulesmade} ap!ficable by^{virtue ofS.17(7)ofthe Act for reviewis on account ofany mistake or enor} apparent from^{the record. It is trite law that only those mistakes or errorswhich are} apparent from^{thefaceof record could be reviewed'There are twotypes of erroneous} decisions. They^{are:- (i) erroneousdecisions in view of the errorcommiued in} appreciatingthetruefactsofthecaseandapplyingthelawrelatingthereto,whichcannot berectifiedbyinvokingthepowerunderreview;and(ii)decisionerroneousinviewof the error^{apparent on the faceof the records, which can be cured and rectified invoking} the power^underreview.

¶72

¶73

The ltt^{respondent/l't defendantraiseda contentionthat thereview} application is^{not maintainable. But it has not furnished anyreasonfor the same'The l't} respondent/ l.t^{defendant could not pointout and this Tribunal could not find out any} ." rvhich^{hits the maintainabilityof the review application'This Tribunal} :]:rr,

¶74

R{ No.2/2023 in SA No.32512022

¶75

finds that the review application is well maintainable and this Tribunal has^jurisdiction to entertain the same.

¶76

Ld counsel for the I't respondenr l^st defendant at the time of hearing advanced arguments to stress the point that a review can be entertained only to correct the clerical error or mistake which is apparent on the face of the record, that review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits and that the applicant under the present review is seeking for substituting the view taken by the Tribunal which is impermissible in law. To buttress the view, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parison Devi and Others v Sumitri Devi and Others freported in (1997) I SCC 7151, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the scope of jurisdiction for review and held that ajudgment may be open to review, inter-alia- ifthere is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further^{heldthat an error} which is not self-evident and^has to^{be detected} by^{a process of reasoningcanhardlybe} said to be an error apparent on the^face of the^{record justifuing the courtto exerciseits} power of review. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt in Slri} Ram Sahu^(dead) throush Lesal^{reoresentativesand others v Vinod Kumar Rowat and} Others lreported in⁽²⁰²¹¹ t3^SCC ll^{wherein the Hon'bleSupremeCourt hasdealt with} the grounds for and power of review^{and held that an error which is not self-evident and} which can be discovered only by a long^process ofreasoning^{cannot be treated as an error} apparent on the face of^{recordjustiffing exerciseof review power.}

¶77

¶78

This Tribunal^{has gone} through^{the aforesaid Judgments and found that it} is ofno avail to the lst respondent/l't^{defendant to fortifyits contention. Rather, the facts} of the present case is^going in line^{withthe finding of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the} aforesaid cases in respect of^{jurisdictionandpower of this Tribunal to entertainthe} present review application. It only fortifies the^{view of the Tribunalupon the point of} error apparent on the face ofthe^{record taken in this matter'}

¶79

RA No.2/2023 in SA No.32512022

¶80

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thunsabhadra Industries Ltd.^v. Govt. of A.P freoorted in AIR 1964 SC 1372] has distinguished^{an erroneous decisionand a} decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'^{and held that where} without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say that there is^a substantial point of law which stares one in the^{face, and there} could^{reasonably be no} two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error^apparent on the^face of record^is

¶81

made out. The decision reads thus:-

¶82

" [TJhere is q distinction which is real, though it might not alwsrs be capable o/ exposilion, between a mere erroneots decision and a^{decisionwhich could be characterised qsvitiatedby 'error} oryarent'. A review by no mean:t an^{appealin disguise wherebyan etoneous decisionis reheard and} corrected bul lies only for^patent error ...^{..-... .... wherewithout anyelaborate argumentone couldpoint lo} the error and soy here is a substantial^{pointof law which stares one in lhe} face,^{and therecould reasonably} be no two opinions entertained about it,^{a clearcaseoferrorapparenton theface ofrecordwouldbe made} out. "

¶83

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meera^Bhanja v.^{NirmalaKumari} choudhury freoorted in AIR^{1995SC 4551 followed the decisionin AribamTuleshwar} and reiterated that an

¶84

error apparent on the^face of^{recordfor acquiringjurisdiction to reviewmust be an enor} which may strike one on^{a merelooking at the record andwould not require any long-}

¶85

drawn process of reasoning^{and it readsthus:-}

¶86

"8. It is wel! set ed that the revian proceedings are not^{by way o/ an appealand have lo be} strictly conlined to the^{scopeand ambilof Order 47 RuleI CPC. ln conneclionwithlhe limitationof lhe} powers -Court olihe court under Order 47 Rule l,^{while dealingwith similqr} iurisdiction^{ovailableto the H_igh} while seeking to reyiew the^{orders underArticle226of the Conslilution,this Court,in Aribam} Tuleshwar sharma v. Aribam^{Pishaksharma speaking through ChinnappaReddy,J has madethe} following^{pertinenlobservqtions:}

¶87

'h is trtrc lhere i.\ nothing in Article 226 of the Conslitlttion^{to preclude the High Court} lront exercising the power of^{review which inheres in eterycourt of plenary jurisdictionto prevent miscarriage} ofjustici or ti correct^{grave andpalpableefiors committed by it. Bul, thereare definitivelimils to the} erLrcise of the^power if^{review-The power of review may be exercisedon thediscoveryof new and} importani mauer or evidence^{which, after the acerciseof due diligencewas not withinthe knowledgeof the} pirson seeking the review or co d^{not be producedby him at the time whenlhe orderwas made;it may be} 'exercised whie some mistake or error apparent on the face of the rccord is found, it tnqy also be exercised on any analogous^{ground.But, il maynol be exercisedon the ground lhat the decision was erroneouson} neriri. Thqt iouli be^{the protinceof a courtof appeal. A} Power^{of review is notto be confusedwith} appellate power which^{may enableqn appellatecourtlo cofieclqllmannerof errorscommittedby lhe} t hordinole courl"'

¶88

¶89

RA No.2/2023 in SA No.32512022

¶90

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v Mavawati freported iry

¶91

I SCC 3201 has summarised the^principles relating to maintainability of review and it reads thus:-

¶92

"The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarised as follows: llhen the review will be mqintainable:

¶93

(i) Discovery of new and importonl malter or evidence which, artet the acercise of due diligence, was not v/ithin knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

¶94

(i, Mislake or error appment on the face ofthe record;

¶95

(iii) Ary other sulficient reason."

¶96

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Marakkara Gramapanchqvat & Anr

¶97

v lbrahim [reoorted in 2021⁽¹⁾ KLI 805 : 2020 ICO 4193] has held that even if^a

¶98

gnund taken in the review petition is a new^ground, however, the^ground being^{a point} of law there cannot be any impediment to seek review of^{the judgement on that ground,and} it reads thus:-

¶99

"True, the ground on which lhe respondents seek review of the iudgement is nol a^ground that was urged at the lime of hearing of^{the writ petilion.However,the groundbeinga} Point^{of low, according to} me, there cannot be any impediment for^{the resPondents to seek review of the} iudgement^{on thatground. "}

¶100

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goel^{Gansa Develooers India Pvt Ltd v}

¶101

lJnion oj lndia [reported in 20]8⁽³⁾ KLT^{782 (SOl has held that if a partyurges that} some of the contentions urged by^{it have not been takeninto consideration then it hasto} file a review application and it is but^{obviousthat such review application shouldbe}

¶102

heard by the same^Bench which^{had originally heard the matter,and it reads thus:-}

¶103

"lt is trall lttottn thut purties roise vtrious conlenlions in lheir^{pleadingsor in their evidence.On} many occasions when^{argumentsareheadmany of thepleasare nol urged. Atty judicial authority} including the NGT which is^{presided over by a judicialmemberwho may be a retired Judge of thisCourt} or of a^-High Court is expeited^{to dealwith allconlentions raised before it. There is s} Presumption^lhat judicial a*horities -of must have dealt ./ith all the contentions^{raised before then. If a partyurges lhatsome} the contentions urged by it^{have notbeentqkeninto considerationthenil has,o} file^{d review aPplication} ind it is bur obvious that such^{refiew application shouldbe hard by the sqme Bench which had originally} heard the mater. "

¶104

It was also held^{by the Hon'ble Supreme Cowl in Union of India v Sandur}

¶105

¶106

that review power can be ex€rcised on discovery ofnew^{and important matteror evidencewhich,after the exercise} of due diligence,^was not^{withinknowledgeofthe petitioner or could not be producedby}

¶107

¶108

RA No.2/2023 in SA No.3252022

¶109

him, mistake or elror^{apparenton the faceof the record or any othersufficient reason,} $,hich means ' a reason sulficient^{on grounds, at least analogous to those specifiedin the}

¶110

Rgle'-

¶111

"Thus, in view ofthe abwe,^the following^{groundsof reviewaremainlainableas sriPulated by lhe} slatute:

¶112

Discovery of new and important^{nqleror evidencewhich, after lheexerciseof due diligence,was} not within the knowledge of^{the petitioner or could notbe producedby him.}

¶113

Mistake or error apparent on^the face^{of lhe record.}

¶114

Aw other sufficienl reason. The^{words'a4v other s4fficient reason to mean 'a reasonsuficient} on grounds,^ql least^{analogousto thosespecliedin the rule'. "}

¶115

It is nobody's case that SA 325/2022^{was dismissed as per final order} dated 31.03.2023 on merits of^{the caseand that the decision of the Tribunal was} erToneous on merits of the^{case. The errorocculTed is self-evident and apparent on the} facc of the records and no long^{drawnprocessof reasoningis required and if the same is} no'i reviewed the same^{willresultin miscarriageofjusticeand will prejudicially affect the} petitioner/applicant. No need to be^{fishedout and searchedout to find such error} occured. The^{mistake occurred on the part of the Tribunalis prima facievisible from the} records and the same does not require^{any detailedexamination. The mistakecommitted} by this Tribunal and^{pointed out by the petitioner/applicantis not on meritsof the case} but only on the^point of^{questionof law, whichamounts to the error apparent on the face} of the record.

¶116

In such^{circumstances,the aforesaidfacts and groundsbrought on record} through the memorandum of^{reviewpetition by the review petitioner/applicantcanbe a} legitimate basis for^{settingasidethe impugnedorder and re-adjudicationof the matterin} dispute. Suffice it to^{saythatthe relief prayedfor which goes to the root of appreciation} of question of law is^{within the scopeof R.5A of the Rules beforethis Tribunal.It} implies that this Rule^{can be pressedinto serviceas the reviewsoughtfor is builton the} foundation of the^{questionof law amountingto the eror apparenton the face of the} records.

¶117

¶118

¶119

RA No.2i2023 in SA No.325/2022

¶120

¶121

In the above circumstances, this review application is found to be

¶122

sustainable in the eye of law and thus is liable to be allowed.

¶123

26 In the result, RA No.2/2023 is allowed. IA Nos.89512023 and 106512023 are closed. The final order dated 31.03.2023 is set aside. SA 32512022 is restored to file. Parties on both sides are directed to appear before the Tribunal for hearing on 12.08.2024. No costs.

¶124

[Dictated^{to tny PA, transcribed by him, correctedand pronounced by mein the openTribunal on this\teI lh day of} July,2024l

¶125

, \

¶126

t^IMTIAZALI ] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶127

¶128

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBI.INAL- I'} KARNATAKA AT^BANGALORE

¶129

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ^ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶130

Dated the¹ lth daY of^{JulY, 2024}

¶131

REVIEW APPLICATION^{NO. 2 OF 2023}

¶132

¶133

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION NO.325 OF 2022}

¶134

Between Arun Kumar, S/o Marisonnappa, 100, 4th Main, Amaraiyothi Layout, R T Nagar, Bangalore, Kamataka - 560032.^{. .. . . ... Review Petitioner/Applicant}

¶135

And

¶136

Kotak Mahindra^Bank, having its registered office^at C27 , Bmdra Kurla^ComPlex, Bandra (E), Mumbai -⁴⁰⁰⁰⁵¹ and branch among^other Places^at 22, Ground Floor, Kotak^House, Mahatma Gandhi^Road, Bengaluru, Kamataka -^560001, represented by its^President and two others.

¶137

Respondents/delendants

¶138

ORDER

Mr Arun Kumar M v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Arun Kumar M v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Plastic versus Bank of India

Mayurkumar J Gohel and Ors. versus Hero Finance Corp Ltd.

Mr Rajesh K Lodhia versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S J. G. Enterprises

Smt Renu Singh versus Union Bank of India

Mrs Reena Devi versus Punjab National Bank