Dismissed

M/s Exalt Educational Trust and others v. Union Bank of India

DRT14 May 2025RA/18/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a review application filed regarding a prior order. The court held that grounds raised, including discrepancies in account statements and NPA dates, involved reappraisal of facts and evidence, falling outside the limited scope for review under Rule 5(A).

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed along with all pending applications.

M/s Exalt Educational Trust and others versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

DRT.PATNA

RA 18 of 2023 [01

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

PresidingOfficer: Shri KaushalendraYadav

¶6

R.A. CaseNo. 18 of 2023

¶7

[Arisingoutof OA Caseno.: 346 of 20231

¶8

1. MIs Exalt Education Trust at 311 A, Ashiana Tower, Exhibition Road,Patna- 1. Addressof College- at Kanhauli, Hajipur, Mahua Road,Vaishali, Pin844114.

¶9

Dipak Kumar, 5/0 - Guneshwar Sahu, 305 A, Shanti Vihar Apartment, behind RBIOffice, Exhibition Road,Patna- 1.

¶10

¶11

1. Babita Kumari, W/o Dipak Kumar, 305 A, Shanti Vihar Apartment, behind RBIOffice, Exhibition Road,Patna- 1.

¶12

......Applicants

¶13

¶14

Union Bank of India, Exhibition Road,Patna- 1.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Present: For the Applicant Sh.Manoj Kr.Chaudhary,Advocate Forthe Respondent Manish Kishore

¶17

Dated: 14.05.2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review the Judgment/order dated 12.07.2023passedin the OA 346/2023 by this Tribunal.

¶20

It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicants that the prior to amalgamation of Corporation Bank with the present Union Bank of India, the erstwhile Corporation Bank had provided statement of account upto 08.12.2021to the applicant vide which the outstanding

/
( ,f"/ .0
}~ '-"

DRT.PATNA

RA18 of 2023 (0)

against the applicants was Rs.3,45,74,556/- as on 08.12.2021 whereas the statement of account provided by the Union Bank of India on 31.12.2021 i.e, after amalgamation indicate Rs.3,85,84,665.40as on 08.12.2021. In this regard no explanation has been given by the Bankduring the hearing of OA 346/2021. The respondent Bank failed to file the statement of account from the very inception of the account in the OA therefore, the applicants were deprived of verifying the entries made in the statement of account. It is further submitted that the date of NPAof the account was also changed many a time in derogation of IRACNorms and RBI guidelines. The loan of Rs.3.75 crore was sanctioned against the mortgaged of the property of applicants no. 2 and 3 at Delhi while the property of the applicants at Mahua, Vaishali was deposited with the Bank on the assurance of Bank to sanction Term Loan of Rs.6 crore which was not sanctioned by the Bank and also not releasing the sale deed of the property for which there is no charge.

¶26

On the contrary, Id. Counselof the respondent Bank submitted that the present review application is not maintainable being barred by law of limitation nor has any limitation petition for condoning the delay been filed. The judgment in OA was passedafter considering the entire facts and hearing the parties on all points which have been raised herein. The present RA has been filed just to delay and to defeat the usufruct of contested judgment/certificate passedby this Tribunal. There is no apparent error on the face of record.

¶27

Considered the contentions of the applicant bank and perused the caserecords.

DRT.PATNA

RA18of 2023[01

S. The present ReviewApplication has been filed by the applicant under rule s-A of the Debts RecoveryTribunal [Procedures] Rules1993.The rule s-A readsas under-

¶32

"[1] Any party consideringitself aggrievedby an order madeby the Tribunal on accountof somemistakeor error apparenton the faceof the records desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had madethe order.

¶33

[Z] No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.

¶34

[3] Whereit appearsto the Tribunalthat there is no sufficientground for a review, it shall reject the application [but where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application]for reviewshallbegranted, it shallgrant the

¶35

same."

¶36

This review petition is mainly on the ground of non-appreciation of the pleadings, facts and evidence and the law which is beyond the scope of inquiry under Rule SA. The phrase "mistake or error apparent on the face of record" can't be construed as de novo reappreciation of facts and evidence.

¶37

The submission that the statement of account provided by the erstwhile Corporation Bank shows dues upto 08.12.2021 is Rs.3,4s,74,ss6/- while the statement of account provided by the Union Bank of India i.e. after amalgamation indicates dues as Rs.3,8s,84,66s.40ason 08.12.2021.

¶38

The applicant makessubmissionthat the proper finding could not be recorded asthe respondent did not file the proper evidence. As such the points raised in this application are about reappraisal of fact and evidence which is beyond the scopeof Review.

¶39

The Casecan be decided on the basisof facts and relevant evidence available on record. There appears no error apparent on the face of

DRT,PATNA

RA 18 of 2023 [OJ

record. The error apparent on the face of record is not a matter of presumption.

¶44

In my opinion, the grounds as mentioned in the Review petition, relate to appreciation of new facts and new evidence that was not available at the time of judgment. The scope of enquiry under the review application is not extended to revisit or de novo appraisal of evidence. Neither this application disclosesany arithmetical, clerical, any other error apparent on the face of record, nor it has been pointed out during the courseof arguments.

¶45

As such this petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly along with all pending lAs.

¶46

Order signed, sealed,dated and pronounced in the open court on this 14TH Dayof May, 2025.

¶47

Dictated & corrected by me.

¶48

[Kaushalendra Yadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

M/s Exalt Educational Trust and others v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Exalt Educational Trust and others v. Union Bank of India

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Narender Singh Thakur

State Bank of India versus Parveen Kumar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Manik Chawla and Anr.

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Sujit Kumar Das Prop of Das Hardware And Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Progressive Papers Through its Proprietor Mrs. Reshmi Das Sarkar

Federal Bank versus Job G Oommen