Dismissed

Rajani Mathran and Anr. v. Standard Chartered Bank

DRT7 Oct 2024RA/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Review Application filed against an order denying relief. The Tribunal held that no error was apparent on the face of the record and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable. It ruled that the only remedy is an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, characterizing the review as abusive.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with West Bengal State Legal Service Authority.

Rajani Mathran and Anr. versus Standard Chartered Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-3, KOLKATA Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶2

Case No. RA/ 1/2024 (Diary No.r.aa5l2023)

¶3

CaseNo.RA/ No.r.aa5l202	RajaniMathran&Anr. Bank vs.Standar 1/2024(Diary 3)	d Chartered
Dateof Order	Orderwithsignature	Office action dated Signature
0ld€rNe-of Dt.07.10.2024 S!.Ne-22	-ForRAapplicant :LdcounselMr.Dinabandhu Chowdhury -ForRespondentF.I. :None
J	RAll/2024arisingoutofDiaryNo.1886/2023is takenupforhearing. Heard ld counselfromthesideofRAapplicant. Considered. TheinstantRAisareview application against order No.3dated4.4.2024^passedbythis Tribunal. Itisstatedthatan application under Section¹⁷⁽¹⁾ wasfiledagainsttheimpugned orderofLdCJMdated 09.0 3,2023. Itisstatedthat theLdTribunal overlookedthefact whilepassingthe orderNo.3dated4.4.2024thatthe applicant wasfiled withinthe^periodoflimitation^i.e. from the dateofknowledgeoftheapplicantandthe saidorderNo.3dated4.4.2024isliabletobe^set aside. Itisstatedthat theapplicantisneither^the borrowerortheguarantorandthe^propertyofthe applicantssituatedon7thfloorof thebuildinglsnot thesecured asset oftherespondent. ItisstatedthattheLd Tribunalhascommitted errorinholdingthedateofllmitationof 45^dayswill start fromthedateofmeasuretaken under^Section 13(4)of theSARFAESIAct butthemeasureunder Section13(4)wastakenont2.05,2022^andthe^said measurewas takenwithouttheknowledgeof^the applicant,andsimilarlytheorderdated09.03.2023 has been^passedbytheclMwithouttheknowledgeof theapplicantandthestarting^pointof^limitation cannotbeeither12.05.2022or09.03.2023and

¶4

¶5

startingpointoflimitationincaseoftheapplicant
shallbefrom thedateofknowledge.
RAapplicant praysforrecallingand/orquashing
and/orcancellingand/orterminatingtheorderNo.3
dated4.4.2024.
Perusedthecaserecord.Itappearsthatthecase
wasfiled on08.01.2024.PerusedorderNo.3dated
4.4.2024passed bythis Tribunal,speakingforitself.
ItappearsthatMAapplicantisseekinglimitation
fromthedateofknowledgei.e. from22.77.2023
whenthe entryoftheapplicantsto theirownhouseat
7thfloorofthesubjectpremiseswas obstructedand
stoppedbyvirtuallymakingdisposed.Thepurported orderofLd CIMwaspassedon09.03.2023. Itis also allegedthatno copyoftheorder oftheLd
CIM was servedontheapplicants. The applicantsare
neithertheborrowers northemortgagees. SoLdCIM
isnotsupposedtoserveupon anythirdpartyinlaw. Respondenthasproceededagainstdefaulted
borrowers.
Documentsrelied uponbytheMAappticantffi
some lettersaddressedto therespondentbankanddo
notsupportthecaseoftheapplicants,inrespect of
limitation.Moreover,inSarfaesiAct,limitationcannot
beextended by merecorrespondences. Itappearsthattherewas noerrorapparentonthe
faceoftherecordinpassingorderNo.3dated
4.4.2024.
Thepowertoreviewitsjudgmentshasbeen
conferredontheHon'ble SupremeCourtbyArticle
137oftheConstitutionof India.Of course,thatpower
issubjecttotheprovisionsofanylawmadebythe
parliamentortheRulesmadeunderArticle145.
Hon'ble SupremeCourtinexerciseofthepowers
conferredunderArticle 145oftheConstitutionof
Indiahasframed theSupreme CourtRuels,2013.The
orderXLVIIofpartIVthereof detailswiththe
provisionsofreview. Accordinglyinacivilproceeding,
anapplicationforreviewisentertainedonlyonthe
grounds mentionedinorderXLVU Rule1of theCpC
and in aCr.P.C.ontheground ofanerrorapparenton thefaceofrecord.

¶6

A^judgmentisopentoreviewand/orrecallinter
I alia,ifthereisamistakecran errorapparentonthe faceoftherecord.Ajudgmentpronouncedbythe Courtisfinal,anddeparturefromthatprincipleis justifiedonlywhencircumstancesof asubstantialand compellingcharacter makeitnecessarytodo so.An errorwhichis notself-evidentandhastobe detected byaprocessofreasoning,can hardlybe saidtobean errorapparenton thefaceofrecordjustifyingthe courttoexercise itspowerofreview. A review petition hasalimitedpurpose andcannotbe allowedtobe "an appealindisguise." Undertheguiseofreview,the petitioner cannotbepermittedtore-agitateand rear9uethequestionswhich havealreadybeen addressed anddecided. InacivilprocedureanapplicationForreviewwould beentertainedonlyontheground mentionedinorder XLVURule1of theCodeofCivilprocedureandina Criminal^proceedingonthegroundofanerror apparenton thefaceofrecord.Reviewcannotrepajr the verdictoncegiven.Sothelaw isthatapartyis not entitledtoseek review ofjudgment bythecourt merelyfor thepurposeofsomefreshdecisionofthe case.Thenormalprincipleisthatajudgment pronouncedbytheCourtisfinalandanydeparture fromtheirprincipleisjustifiedonlywhen circumstancesof asubstantialandcompelling charactermakeitnecessarytodoso.Sothelawlaid down must rest inpeace. Section5of theLimitation Actisnotapplicablein filingSection17application. AccordingtoSection 17(1),theperiodof45daysismandatedto commencefromthedateonwhichameasure under Section13(4)has beenadopted. Applicantdid notfite anySection 17applicationas against13(4)measure takenby theconcernedbank.Theapplicantwas movedtothisTribunalagainstD.M.orderwhich asI find isdated09.03.2023andwhichisatsoafterthe expiryofstipulatedperiod asmandated inlaw. JudgmentoftheHon,bleSupremeCourtinthe matterofBankofBaroda &Anr.Vs.M/s.parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrahpvt.Ltd.&Ors.(CivilAppeal

A^judgmentisopentoreviewand/orrecallinter

I
alia,ifthereisamistakecran errorapparentonthe
faceoftherecord.Ajudgmentpronouncedbythe
Courtisfinal,anddeparturefromthatprincipleis
justifiedonlywhencircumstancesof asubstantialand
compellingcharacter makeitnecessarytodo so.An
errorwhichis notself-evidentandhastobe detected
byaprocessofreasoning,can hardlybe saidtobean
errorapparenton thefaceofrecordjustifyingthe
courttoexercise itspowerofreview. A review petition
hasalimitedpurpose andcannotbe allowedtobe "an
appealindisguise." Undertheguiseofreview,the
petitioner cannotbepermittedtore-agitateand
rear9uethequestionswhich havealreadybeen
addressed anddecided.
InacivilprocedureanapplicationForreviewwould
beentertainedonlyontheground mentionedinorder
XLVURule1of theCodeofCivilprocedureandina
Criminal^proceedingonthegroundofanerror
apparenton thefaceofrecord.Reviewcannotrepajr
the verdictoncegiven.Sothelaw isthatapartyis
not entitledtoseek review ofjudgment bythecourt
merelyfor thepurposeofsomefreshdecisionofthe
case.Thenormalprincipleisthatajudgment
pronouncedbytheCourtisfinalandanydeparture
fromtheirprincipleisjustifiedonlywhen
circumstancesof asubstantialandcompelling
charactermakeitnecessarytodoso.Sothelawlaid
down must rest inpeace.
Section5of theLimitation Actisnotapplicablein
filingSection17application. AccordingtoSection
17(1),theperiodof45daysismandatedto
commencefromthedateonwhichameasure under
Section13(4)has beenadopted. Applicantdid notfite
anySection 17applicationas against13(4)measure
takenby theconcernedbank.Theapplicantwas
movedtothisTribunalagainstD.M.orderwhich asI
find isdated09.03.2023andwhichisatsoafterthe
expiryofstipulatedperiod asmandated inlaw.
JudgmentoftheHon,bleSupremeCourtinthe
matterofBankofBaroda &Anr.Vs.M/s.parasaadilal
Tursiram Sheetgrahpvt.Ltd.&Ors.(CivilAppeal

¶7

No.5240 of ZO22 arising out of SLP(C)^{No.6368/2017)} and^judgment of the Hon'ble^{High Court at Calcuttain} the matter of Akshat Commercial^{Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana} Chakraborty are^{relled uPon.}

¶8

It appears that this^{Tribunalpassed a speaking} order No.3 dated^{4.4.2024.Only recourseleft open to} the applicant is to^{file an appealor revisionagalnst} the said order^{No.3 daled 4.4.2024 before the} appellate forum.

¶9

I do not flnd any^{errorapparenton the face of the} record.

¶10

It appears from^{recordthat the applicant previously} filed a review application^{being DiaryNo.79712024on} the self same^{ground which wasdismissedby order} No.2 dated 23.07.2024.^{The applicantshave again} come up with the^{present review applicationwithout} preferring an appeal or^{review againstthe impugned} order^{No.3daled 4.4.2024} '

¶11

Review cannot^{repair the verdictonce given'So the} law is that a^{party is not entitled to seek review of} judgment by the court^{merely for the purposeof some} fresh decision^{of the case While considerinq the} application^{for review Tribunalmust adjudicate the} issue with^{reference to the matters whichwere} available^{at the time of taking decision'} It appears^{that the applicanthas comeup with} review^{application each time with somenew papers} with malafide^{motiveand to improve his caseThe} present RA is filed to^{abusethe processof law'}

¶12

I do not find^{any errorapparent on the face of the} record. Only^{remedy avallable to the applicant is to} prefer an appeal^{under Section18 of the Sarfaesi Act'} There is^{no scope for recalling and/or reviewing the} order No.3^{dated 4.4.2024' The presentR'A' appears} to be^{harassiveand is filed to abuse the process of} law. Hence

¶13

ORDERED

¶14

The instant^{RAIUIO?is dlsmissedwith cost of} Rs.1O,OOO/-^{to be depositedwith West Bengal State} Legal Service^Authority.

¶15

(KAMALDE) PRESIDING^OFFICER DRT.IIt,^KOLKATA

Rajani Mathran and Anr. v. Standard Chartered Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajani Mathran and Anr. v. Standard Chartered Bank

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

Punjab National Bank versus Subir Patra

Canara Bank versus Aparajita Chatterjee and Anr.

Samar Das and Anr. versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Rajasree Bhattacharya Nee Bhajan versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Uco Bank versus Mrs Saraswati Shah

Good Luck Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Uco Bank