The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed a review application challenging an auction order. The applicant argued the bank misrepresented information provided to a financing company. The Court held the facts were established and no error apparent on the face of the record existed.
Review application fails and is dismissed. No costs.
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-2 ATHYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.com,L.LB.(Hons.), M.a'
PRESIDING OFFICER
Review Application No.O2 of 2O25 In SA No.145/2025
Kishan Rao Srelam S/o Sathaiah Srelam Aged 64 years, Occ:Retd. Service R/o Flat No.1, Surya Residency Plot No.1020, Pragathi Nagar Bachupally, N4edchal Malkajgiri Dist.
... Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
U nion Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch(ARB) #249?Rf, 1't Floor, Main Road, S.R. Nagar Rep. by Authorized Officer .....Respondent
:Mr. T. Sridhar ReddY Counsel for the Review Applicant Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Bank :Ms.Sangeeta laiswal
-: CL-B-D-E-B:.
PaSe 2 of3
Rev.Appln.No.0212025 in sA 145/2025
sanctioned vide letter dated 04.03.2025. Learned counsel sought to review the order and consequently allow the SA and order refund of 25Vo bid amount deposited by the review applicant, in the interest ofjustlce.
Page 3 of 3
Rev.Appln.No.02l 2025 in SA L45 12025
B. All the grounds raised by the applicantwere consideredwhile passing the final order in SA L45/2025. No validground ormistake or error apparent on the face ofrecord, asrequired under Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, is established toreview the order' Accordingly review applicationis liable tobe dismissed.
(TvDed to my dictation bY the P5, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Lolirt o, tnii tnu 26th day ofMarch, 2026).
/lW*, (RAI{ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review applicant established any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review under Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
Whether the failure of the financing company to release the sanctioned amount constitutes misrepresentation by the bank justifying a review of the auction order.
Whether the Tribunal below erred in dismissing the auction review application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nishant Kumar vs. State of IJP and 2 othersRelied on¶23
Nishant Kumar vs. State of IJP and 2 others [2024:AHC:49114-DB]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kishan Rao Srelam
Union Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch
Rameshwar Kothé
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
