This Debts Recovery Tribunal order dismisses a review petition and an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal held Section 5A of the RDB Act did not permit condoning delay beyond 30 days and rejected the applicant's claim that the main matter was reserved.
RA No.2/2023 and MA No.4/2023 stand 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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHENNAI
Dated this 29th Day of May, 2024
PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA
Presiding Officer
RA No.2/2023
In
SA No.334/2022
Mr.K.Rajarajan, S/o Mr.A.Kannan, 92-93, Vinayagar Street, Dr.MGR Nagar, Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry – 605004.
. . . Applicant
Versus
Chennai – 600002.
1
| Ld.Counsel for Applicant | :- | Mr.Avinash along with Mr.Manimaran |
|---|---|---|
| Ld.Counsel for D1 | :- | Ms.Ananda Gomathy & Mr.Roshan |
| Ld.Counsel for D2 & D3 | :- | Mr.Senthur Gugan |
| Ld.Counsel for D4 | :- | Mr.A.S.Vijayabaskar |
: - O R D E R- :
By this final order the review petition and the application for condoning the delay in filing the review are being disposed of together.
1.1 Review Petition is filed under Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 22(2)(e) of RDB Act. Section 22(2)(e) provides for review and Section 17(7) empowers the DRT to dispose of the applications under the RDB Act.
2.0 It is submitted that in SA No.334/2022, the Applicant had filed three IAs one for stay, the second one for a direction to the bank to produce the valuation and the third application for appointing a Government approved and IBBI certified valuer to obtain fresh valuation. Applicant contends that he was given to understand that when the matter was argued on 29.11.2022, that the matter was reserved for orders only on the IAs and not on the SA. But when the orders were pronounced, SA itself was disposed of to his surprise. Later the Applicant filed an IA for recalling the order and the said IA was
2
disposed of holding that the Tribunal had become functous officio and hence the present review.
2.1 The disposal of the main SA is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore it is prayed that the final order in SA 334/2022 be reviewed and an opportunity to hear on the merits be given again.
2.2 Upon notice to the contesting Respondents all appeared through their counsel did not file their counter, but argued the matter. It is also significant herein that by an order dated 18.05.2023, this Tribunal noted that the matter will be heard on IA as well as on merits, and was argued on the IA for condoning the delay and also on merits, by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and the 1st Respondent only.
2.4 On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the contesting financial institution relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. MSTC Limited 2020(13)SCC 618 in which it was held that:-
“21. The peremptory language of Rule 5A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that Rule 5A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a review petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment, with effect from 04.11.2016, to 30 days. From this two things are clear: one, whether in the original or unamended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as is contained in Section 20(3)of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an
3
intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation – otherwise they would not be maintainable.
In view of the above ruling, this Tribunal is powerless to condone the delay in filing the review and prays for dismissal of the IA for condoning the delay and consequently the Review Petition. However, on the merits it is submitted that no grounds of review is made. The matter in SA No.334/2022 was argued on the IAs as well as merits and the counsel was very much aware. Since there is no error apparent on the face of the record and there being no piece of evidence to be considered which escaped the attention of the Tribunal and further there being no mistake or reasons to entertain the review, the 1st Respondent prays for dismissal of the instant petition.
3.0 Having given careful thought to the submissions and the grounds urged for review, this Tribunal is to consider whether the matter was reserved for orders only on the IA as contended by the petitioner.
4.0 It is relevant to cull-out the chronology of the progression of SA No.334/2022, which is perused and is as under:-
4
5
on all the IAs and the merits cannot be a ground for review since the chronology of the case as given above would speak the facts. Hence there is no merit in the review petition. Consequently the following:
RA No.2/2023 seeking review of the final orders in SA No.334/2022 disposed on 21.12.2022 stands dismissed. The MA No.4/2023 for condoning the delay in filing RA No.2/2023 also stands dismissed.
Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI
(Dictated to the PS on the system corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 29th day of May, 2024)
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to condone a delay of five days in filing a review petition under Section 5A of the RDB Act.
Whether a misunderstanding by the applicant that the main suit would be heard only on interim applications constitutes a valid ground for review.
Whether any error apparent on the face of the record existed in the earlier order dismissing the main application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. MSTC Limited 2020(13)SCC 618Explained¶32
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr. K. Rajarajan
The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank
A.S.Jayachandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
