Dismissed

Gautam Ghosh v. Uco Bank

DRT13 Aug 2024RA/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a review application filed by an applicant seeking a rehearing of a Sales Agreement. The court held that since the matter was decided on contest, the applicant should have raised grievances then; seeking a rehearing via review violates the principle that review is maintainable only for apparent mistakes, not for relitigation.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application RA 3 of 2024 is dismissed on contest.

	Order Sheet (continuation)
Case No. Case (SA 9 of 2019)	No. RA 3 of 2024 Gautam Ghosh -vs- UCO Bank & ors.
Date of the Order	Order with Signature	Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
13/08/2024	Ms. Jayati Chowdhury, (Virtually) Ms. Mandobi Chowdhury. … For the Sarfaesi Applicant. Ms. Shusna Santra. … For the Respondents No. 1 & 2.
	Ms. Tonoya Ghose. … For the Respondent No. 3. Matter was heard on 05/07/2024. Applicant has filed Review Application for review of the final order dated 19/03/2024 passed in SA/09/2019. The Review Applicant has pleaded that the Respondent Bank has imposed excessive rate of interest to the tune of Rs. 1,53,245.60 and recovery agent fees of Rs. 2,09,284.80/-.
	The Applicant has contended that Applicant has paid Rs. 13,24,787/ which is lying with the Defendant Bank in an interest bearing account for last two years but the same is not reflected in the order dated 19/03/2024. The Applicant has contended that entire action of the Applicant is illegal, unlawful and prayed for rehearing of the SA alongwith other IAs.
	The O.P. Bank at the time of hearing of Review Application on 05/07/2024 argued that there is no prayer in

Order Sheet (continuation)

Case No. Case
(SA 9 of 2019)

No. RA 3 of 2024

Gautam Ghosh -vs- UCO Bank & ors.

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature

Office action with
date and dated
Signature of
Parties when
necessary

13/08/2024

Ms. Jayati Chowdhury, (Virtually)
Ms. Mandobi Chowdhury.
… For the Sarfaesi Applicant.
Ms. Shusna Santra. … For the Respondents No. 1 & 2.

Ms. Tonoya Ghose. … For the Respondent No. 3.
Matter was heard on 05/07/2024.
Applicant has filed Review Application for review of the
final order dated 19/03/2024 passed in SA/09/2019. The
Review Applicant has pleaded that the Respondent Bank has
imposed excessive rate of interest to the tune of
Rs. 1,53,245.60 and recovery agent fees of Rs.
2,09,284.80/-.

The Applicant has contended that Applicant has paid
Rs. 13,24,787/ which is lying with the Defendant Bank in an
interest bearing account for last two years but the same is
not reflected in the order dated 19/03/2024. The Applicant
has contended that entire action of the Applicant is illegal,
unlawful and prayed for rehearing of the SA alongwith other
IAs.

The O.P. Bank at the time of hearing of Review
Application on 05/07/2024 argued that there is no prayer in

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature

Office action with
date and dated
Signature of
Parties when
necessary

respect of recovery agent fees.
Before going into the merit of the Review Application
the applicant has to satisfy that there is mistake on the face
of the record.
As per Rule 5 A of the DRT Procedure Rules ,1993 and
Section 22(2)(e) of the RDB Act,1993 the procedure of
Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be followed in respect of review.

Order 47 Rule 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
provides that Review Application is maintainable if the
decree/order passedon account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record.
In this Review Application Applicant wants total
rehearing of the SA. The SA was decided after hearing from
both sides. Regarding excess rate of interest and some other
fees was considered at the time of hearing of the SA and the
SA has been decided on contest. Applicant should have
argued the same at the time of hearing of the SA. When the
SA has been decided on contest, remedy lies for the
Applicant is to file Appeal against the judgment dated
19/03/2024 in SA/09/2019 and IA/471/2022. The Review
Application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Hence it is ordered:

DEB
Date of
the Order

TS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1,KOLKATA
Order with Signature

Office action with
date and dated
Signature of
Parties when
necessary

i)
RA 3 of 2024 arising out of SA 9 of 2019 is

dismissed on contest against the Respondents.

(Ambuja Mohan Das)
Presiding Officer

Gautam Ghosh v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Ghosh v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afruza Begam versus Ugro Capital Limited

Indian Bank versus Baruuni Sprits Pvt. Ltd.

Suvodeep Das and Ors. versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Sabita Gain

Smt Mahua Ghosh versus Axis Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bella and Brat