Dismissed

M S Asset Advisory Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Reddy

DRT21 Apr 2026RA/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad dismissed a Review Application challenging an order that set aside an auction sale. The Review Applicant contended the Tribunal erred for non-consideration of a fresh valuation report requirement under SARFAESI Act. The bench held the review was not maintainable as no error apparent on the face of record existed and the petition could not be an appeal in

What did the court decide?

Review Application No. 5/2024 was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

M S Asset Advisory Services India Pvt. Ltd. versus… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF APRIL. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATIoN No. 5,/2024 IN sA.No.O1/2021

¶5

M/s. Asset Advisory Services India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Dr. Kondapalli Venkat Srinivas, Presently at # 4O2,4tt Floor, 6-3-249 16, " Alcazar Plaza & Towers", Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

¶6

Reuieu Applicant/ Respondent No.2Auction htrchaser

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sri Marem Suresh Reddy, S/o. M. Bhupal Reddy,

¶9

Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, H.No.8-2-3 17 I A, G4, Amritha Enclave, Road No. 14, Near Police Station, Banjara Hi11s, Hyderabad - 5OO 033.

¶10

Respondent/ Applicant.

¶11

Central Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶12

Respondent/ Respondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Reuietu Applicant Counsel for Respondent No.1 Counsel for Respondent No.2

¶14

Si Amanchnrla V. Gopala Rao. Si M. Venkat Diuakar. Sn P.A.V. Bala Prasad.

¶15

1 1.03.2026 20.04.2026 21.04_2026

¶16

t1 #,
*
lt ,-|-"1 2 1 APn 2I//6
this application the Review Applicant under Rule 5-A of the
(Procedure) Rules, 1993, r/w. Sec.22(2)(h) of
?"&,u-qPI:',..

¶17

Rev iew Applicotion No. 5/2024

¶18

the RDB Act, 1993, rlw. Sec.114 of CPC to review the order dt.12.O3.2024 passed in SA. No. I / 2O2t .

¶19

The facts of the case are that, the 1.t Respondent herein had filed the SA.No. 1/202 1 challenging the Auction Sale Notice dt. 13.11.2O2O, issued by the 2"d Respondent Bank herein, fixing the auction of the schedule property on 21.12.2020. However, the said auction did not materialize on 21.12.2020. During the pendency of the SA, the 2"d Respondent Bank herein had issued another e-Auction Sale Notice dt.O5.01.202 1 and conducted the auction of the schedule property on 25.02.2021 , wherein the Review Applicant herein became the successful bidder for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,S8,S0,O00/ - and he deposited 25%o of the said sale consideration with the 2"d Respondent herein whereupon, the 2"d Respondent Bank has issued Sale Confirmation letter dt.23.03.2021 in favour of the Review ApplicantAuction Purchaser. The Applicant in the SA 11"t Respondent herein) amended the SA by challenging the aforesaid auction proceedings and impleading the Review Applicant-Auction Purchaser herein as Respondent No.2 therein. This Tribunal, after considering the submissions made by the parties to the SA, had allowed the SA.No. 1/202 1 vide order dt.12.O3.2O23, the operative portion of which is as under:-

¶20

"13. ln the result, SA 01/2021 is ollowed by setting oside the impugned ouction conducted by the 1't Respondent Bdnk in respect of the schedule property on 25.02.2027 pursuont to the e Auction Sole Notice dt.05.07.2027. Accordingly, the 1't Respondent Bonk is directed to refund the omount deposited by the 2'd Respondent i.e., ouction purchoser of the schedute property towords the bid omount olong with interest @ 9% p.o., simple. The 7't Respondent Bonk is ot liberty to proceed afresh with the ouction of the in occordonce with law. No costs."

¶21

Purchaser has filed the instant review unds: -

¶22

21 APB 2W

¶23

Rev i e w A^ppl ic oaion N o. S /2 02 4

¶24

a) The order dt.12.O3.2O24 passed in SA.No. I l2o2l is an error apparent on the face of record as the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2OO2 arrd the Rules made thereunder;

¶25

b) The Tribunal erred in holding that the Respondent Bank has not obtained valuation report prior to issuing the second Sale Notice dt.05.O1.202 1 from an approved valuer to determine the value of the property;

¶26

c) The observation that the 1st Respondent Bank has not given any reasons for reducing the reserve price of the schedule property is not based on any legal premise;

¶27

d) The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in W.P.No. 13936 of 2016, which is relied upon by the Tribunal was over ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and is not in the field;

¶28

e) The Tribunal erred in holding that the reserve price hxed in the auction sale notice dt.05.01 .202 I is invalid on hypothetical grounds and there is no such mandatory requirement under the law;

¶29

f) The provisions ofthe SARFAESI Act or the Rules does not provide for obtaining fresh valuation report by the 1"t Respondent Bank before every successive auction;

¶30

The assertion of under-vafuation is not supported by any dolyfiiqo4fy*t&ace or pleadings in the SA; fd.--w h) dfi-. r.iurffi that as per Rule 8(5) of the Security ,2OO2,^{there is need for conducting} g a fresh valuation report. The said rule

¶31

Review Applicotion No. 5/2024

¶32

does not mandate nor provide guidelines for obtaining of fresh valuation report for every successive e-auction;

¶33

i) The Tribunal has not considered the contention of the Review Applicant that the Applicant has lost the right of redemption as per Sec. 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, as held by the Honble Apex Court in Bafna Motors case;

¶34

i) The Tribunal ought to have seen that the valuation report was obtained by the lst Respondent Bank on 12.06.202O from an approved valuer, which is about 6-7 months prior to the auction and same is sufficient to determine the intrinsic value of the property and the Tribunal ought not to have set-aside the auction when the entire procedure contemplated under the Act, 2OO2, is followed by the bank; and

¶35

k) The Tribunal ought to have seen the conduct of the borrower, which is materially not bonafide since inception.

¶36

The 1"t Respondent/Applicant filed his Counter reiterating his version in the SA on the issue of valuation and raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the instant review application.

¶37

The 2nd Respondent Bank did not choose to {iIe its Counter.

¶38

Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant submitted that his a be treated as Written Arguments. Ld. Counsel Respondent/Applicant filed his Written

¶39

Se\ ,9,

¶40

""^{c."lJ.r [8P} Applicant to substantiate his contentions i(the rder dt.t2.o3.2024 in SA.No.tl2021 had a" st Respondent Bank has failed to obtain fresh

¶41

¶42

¶43

Rev i e w A ppl ic oti on N o. 5/2 024

¶44

valuation before proceeding for the sale of the property, has relied upon the following decisions:-

¶45

Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "ARCE Polgmers Put. Ltd. Vs. Alpine Pharmaceutical Put., Ltd.,", reported in 2022 (21 SCC 22t;

¶46

ii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anil Kumar Siuastaua Vs. State of U.P. and another', reported in AIR 2004 SC 4299; and

¶47

iii) Decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of "Dr. A.U. Natarajan & another Vs. Indian Bank, Madras", reported in AIR 198 I Madras 15 1 .

¶48

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Applicant in his Written Arguments contended that, the instant Review Appiication is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and to substantiate the said contention, Ld. Counsel placed his reliance on the following judgments: -

¶49

Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of^,,patel Narshi Thakershi and otlrcrs Vs. Shn pradguman Singhji Arjun Singhji", reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273, wherein it is held that "ttrc inherent poluers to reuieu.t must be expresslg conferred bg statute and cannot be claimed othentise";

¶50

ii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Aibam Tfuleshtuar Sharma Vs. Aibam Hshak Sharma and others", reported in AIR 1047, wherein it is held that the "potoer of reuieut mag on the ground that the decision u)as er.roneous on be the prouince of a Court of appeal. A pouer

¶51

to be confused uith appellate pou)er which may

¶52

Review Apphcotion No. 5/2024

¶53

enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by tlre Subordinate Court";

¶54

iii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Smt Meera Bhanja I/s. Smf Nirmala Kumai Choudfutry', reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, wherein it is held that^{.Interference} in reuieu.t is

¶55

permissible onlg if tlrcre is an error apparent on the face of record -^{Sucherror should not require} any long dranun^process of reasoning on a point where there mag conceiuably be tuo opinions -^{Reappreciationof euidence} with a^uiew to find an alleged error for^{the inuocation of powersof reuieut is not permissible.} The reuiew proceedings are not by way of an appeal and haue to be stictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C.";

¶56

iv) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of^*Rajend.er Kumar and others Vs. Rombhai and others", reported in 20O3 AIR (SC) 2095, wherein it is held t]nat,^.TLe limitations on exercise of tte pouer of reuietu ore well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a reuieut petition is that the order, reuiew of uhich is sought, suffers from a.nA error apparent on the

¶57

face^{of the order and permitting the} order to stand will tead to failure^{of justice.In the absence} of ang such error, finalitg attacfad to the judgment/ order cannot be disturbed."

¶58

I have considered the rival submissions.

¶59

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶60

t Review Application is legally maintainable?
To whafielieP - ,'
21 /{Pn 2t26 :

¶61

Rev i ew A^pplic otion N o. 5/2024

¶62

Potnt No.(ilt

¶63

As can be seen from the version of the Review Applicant, its core contention is that in the order dt.12.O3.2O24 passed in SA.No.1/2021, this Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the 1st Respondent has failed to obtain fresh valuation report before issuing the Sale Notice dt.O5.O1.2O2 1 for conducting of auction of the secured asset on 25.02.2021 and so the said order dt. 12.03.2021 passed by this Tribunal is to be reviewed.

¶64

As can be seen from the judgments relied upon by the 1"t Respondent/ Applicants supra, in "Aibam Tuleshutar Sharma Vs. Aibam Pislnk Shanna and others", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. Further, in "Rajender Kumar and others Vs. Rambtni and otlrcrs", (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.

¶65

I have also gone through a decision of the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata in M.A. Diary No.855 of 2024 (arising out of Appeal No.43 of 2022 in DRAT, Kolkatal - "M/ s. Kaimpore Motor and otters Vs. Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Sfressed Assefs Recouery Branch and others", decided on 14.1 1.2024, wherein the Hon'ble DRAT had held ility of the Review petition depends upon the grounds

¶66

as hffbeeililq\by bv the Hon' trb Apex le Court in the case of State (NCT of

¶67

i/,iF De Rathi Steels Ltd., and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs.

¶68

-,!i

¶69

i:,.r^{2slawffailBrllcerF} 1i -6 u#

¶70

Rev i ew A^pplic oti on N o. S/2 024

¶71

In "State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd." l(2O241 7 SCC 3151, the Hon'bie Supreme Court has held that,-

¶72

.42. Order 47 does not end uith tle ciranmstances as Section 114 of Code of Ciuil Procedure, the substantiue prouision, does. Reuiew power under Section 114 read uith Order 47 CPC is auailable to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of the aboue conditions, on setting up bg the reuieut petitioner ang of the

¶73

follouing^grounds:-

¶74

(, Discouery of neu-t and important matter or euidence; or (i, Mistake or error apparent on the face of ttrc record; or (iii) Ang other sufficient reason."

¶75

In "Sanjag Kumar Agarutal Vs. State Tax Officer' l(2O241 2 SCC 3621, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that,-

¶76

"The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:-

¶77

(i) A judgment is open to reuieu.t inter alia if there is a mistoke or an elTor apparent on the face of the record.

¶78

(ii) A judgment pronounced bg tlrc Court is final, and departure from^{that pincipleis justified onlgu.then circumstances} of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶79

(iiil An enor which is not self-euident and lns to be detected bg a process of reasoning, can hardlg be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifging the court to exercise its pouer of r.euieut.

¶80

In exercise of juisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is for^{an erroneousdecision to be "reheardand}

¶81

ti''r ' l") 21 t^'.'

¶82

Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be to be 'an appeal in disguise.'

¶83

Rev iew Applicotbn No. 5/2024

¶84

(ui) Under the guise of reuiew, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which houe already been addressed and decided.

¶85

(uii) An error on the face of record must be such an error uhiclt" mere looking at the record should stike and it should not require ang long-drau.tn process of reasoning on the points uhere tLtere may conceiuablg be tu-to opinions.

¶86

(uiii) Euen the change in lant or subseEient decision/ judgment or a co-ordinate or larger Bench bg itself cannot be regarded as a ground for reuiew . "

¶87

In the present case, it is the contention of the Review Applicant that the finding of this Tribunal in the impugned order that, the lst Respondent has failed to obtain fresh valuation before issuing the Sale Notice dt.O5.O1.202 1 for conducting of auction of the secured asset on 25.02.2021, is an error apparent on the face of record. As far as error apparent on the face of record is concerned, it was held in " Sanjay Kumar Agarutal" (supra) that an error, which is not self-evident or has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. It was further held that under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the question as have already been addressed and decided. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

¶88

This Tribunal in the order dt. 12.03.2024, passed in SA.No.O1/2021, came to conclusion that the 1"t Respondent has failed to obtain fresh gation report before issuing Sale Notice dt.05.01.202 1 for auction of the schedule property, after going through the dr' .l*fa circumstances of the case and the material evidence brought by the parties. No new and important matter of evidence has ltfrf 21npn been ght on record by the Review Applicant. The Review Applicant prove any mistake or error apparent on the face of record or

¶89

Rev i ew Applicati o n N o. 5 /202 4

¶90

¶91

any other sufficient reason. Under such circumstance, I am of the considered view that the present Review Application is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶92

Point No.liil:-

¶93

In the result, the present Review Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶94

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶95

(Dictated to the Priuate Secretary, transcribed bg hirn" corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 20,h daA of Apil, 2026).

¶96

sd/(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶97

TRUE GO!
g/,,4
It/
AgsttRllrmr
DRT.I, HYDERASAD.

M S Asset Advisory Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Asset Advisory Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Reddy

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Eggidi Ramesh @ a. Ramesh

State Bank of India versus Mr. Jonnalagadda Prasad

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ryn Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Yalamandala Venkateshwarlu

State Bank of India versus Mr. Erapa Rama Rao

Canara Bank versus Sri Satyanaryana Swamy Agencies