Allowed

M/S Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Limited v. Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

DRT15 Apr 2026RA/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a review application filed by the defendants, modifying the award of simple interest from 16.70% per annum to 9% p.a. held that the original order failed to exercise judicial discretion to examine reasonableness given substantial asset recovery.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12.11.2025 modified to award interest at 9% p.a. simple in place of 16.70% p.a. simple from the date of filing of the OA till realization.

M/S Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Limited versus… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY^OF APRIL,²⁰²⁶

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.com, L.LB.(Hons'),M.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Review Application No.O3^{of 2O25} In

¶6

OA No.1792 OF 2OL7

¶7

lY/s Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Limited Rep. by its Manaqing Director Su rveyNo.71,72,&73(^{pa rt)} Gund la Pochampally, lvledchal Road, Ranga Reddy^Dist. 500014.

¶8

Shri Gopal Aqarwal S/o late Sri Brindaban^Agarwal Aged : Major, occ:Business PlotNo.46, Road No.10-c J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500082.

¶9

Shri Yash Agarwal S/o Shri Gopal Agarwal Aged: Major, occ: Business Plot No.46, Road No.10-C Ju bileeH ills,^{H ydera} bad-^500082.

¶10

Smt.Ann uradha Agarwal Wo^{Shri Gopal Agarwal} Aged: Major, occ: Business Plot No. 46, Road^No.10-C JubileeHills, Hyderabad-500082'

¶11

M/s Shri Salasar^{Infrastructureand Developers} Rep. by its Managing^Partners 46 Venkat Villa Gunrock Enclave Secunderabad. .... Review Applicants/defendants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Asset Reconstruction^CompanyLtd. (Substituted Canara Bank as^{per ordersin} rA 496/2075,dt.23.08.2017)^{Regd.Office,Ru by}

¶14

Page 2 of 6

¶15

Rev.Appln.No.03 I 2O2S in O A tt92l 2OL7

¶16

10th Floor, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar(West) Mumbai-400028.

¶17

counset ror the Review Appticants ,r,; :;":::;:"erendants Respondent ARC : Mr.P. Sri Harsha Reddy

¶18

-:ORDER:-

¶19

This Review Application is filed by the defendants in OA No.t792/2017 (old OA No.12512014 of DRT-1, Hyderabad) seeking review and modification of interest portion in the order dated 72.Lt.2025 from 16.70o/o p.a. to between 6-9% p.a.

¶20

Respondent ARC filed counter resisting the petition.

¶21

Right of petitioner advancing argument was forfeited on 07.04.2026 as continuously reported not ready. However, he filed memo on 73.04.2026 with citations in support of the pleadings.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the ARCIL, perused the written submissions fled by him and the material records.

¶23

The averments of the review apprication, briefry are that the Tribunal awarded t6.70o/o p.a. simple interest mechanically based solely on the contractual terms, contrary to the law laid down by Hon,ble DRAT, Kolkata in Appeat No.tt6/2O23 decided on 75.O5.2O24 (Smt, D. sandhya Bhaskar sridevi and Anr. vs. Federal Bank Limited) wherein while referring to Hon'bte Apex court judgment in central Bank of rndia vs. Ravindra held that the Tribunals must assign reasons and examine reasonableness before granting contractual interest, and cannot mechanically enforce high rates. Reliance is also prqced onJfre judgment ,'XN91,u'L\

¶24

,-/^te"

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

Rev.Appln.No.03/2025 in o A 17 921 2Ot7

¶27

of Hon'ble DRAT chennai in RA 757/2078 decidect on 77.72.2024 (state Bank of India vs, M/s Keerthi Shoes (India) Private Limited & ors,)fhe respondent already realized substantial amount of Rs.53.80 crores by sale of secured assets despite which Tribunal granted 16.7070 interest for more than a decade, on the entire outstanding amount, which is inequitable, d ispro portion ate and contrary to settled recovery^principles. Failure to exercise^{jurisdictional} discretion in granting interest constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record hence review appllcation is maintainable. The review applicants cannot suffer^for institutional delay in pursuing the matter.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent bank would contend that^review of orders cannot be used as an appealⁱⁿ disguise and^{reviewjurisdiction} cannot be invoked merely because a party is dissatisfied with the^final order. Reliance^placed on Kamlesh Verma^{vs. Mayawai(2013)A SCc} 32o. The interest was restricted to 16.7Oo/o^p.a. simple^against contractual agreement ls for month lylq uarterly^{rests, which itself reflects} equity and^judicial indulgence. The review application does^{not satisfy} the ingredients under Sec.22(2)(e) of the RDB Act,^{1993. Re-} appreciation of merits ls not^permissible in^{review. As per judgment of} Hon'bte Apex court in Review Petition^No.762O of^{2023 in Civil Appeal} No.7667 of 2O2O reported in⁽²⁰²⁴⁾ 2^{supreme Court Cases 362} (sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officet along with other^cases). Learned counsel also relied on^judgment of^{Hon'ble Supreme Courtin} Matleeswari vs. K. Suguna and Another^{(2025SCCOnLine SC 79271in} suppod of his arguments that review^{proceedingscannotbe used as a} substitute for appeal, since there is no^{clerical,arithmetical, or parent} error which clearly amounts to^{seekinga re-hearing on merits.The} present review application is filed only to delay the^{execution of order} dated 12.11.2025^{which should not allowed in the light ofjudgmentof} Hon'ble Supreme Court rePorted in^{(2017) 4 SupreAeCourt cases 692} ' 7Yl^*,\

¶29

¶30

oage 4 ot 6

¶31

Rev.Appln.No.03/2025 in O A 17921 2Ol7

¶32

(Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Aravindakshan Nair and others wherein it was held in^para 13 that^pending review is likely to delay the matter in every court. The^present review application does not fit into the limited scope for review^provided in the Act.

¶33

Learned counsel further informed that the review applicants had approached Hon'ble DRAT challenging the dismissal orders^passed by this Tribunal ln lAs 2772 and 2773 of 2025 which were for reopen evidence and recall applicant's witness on the very same issues, and Hon'ble DRAT dismissed the said Misc. Appeal Dy.No.1193/2025 as infructuous as the OA itself was disposed off. Once the issue of rate of interest raised and rejected, the same issue cannot be agitated once again and it is in gross abuse of process of law.

¶34

With the above contentions, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the application with exemplary costs for squander of the precious time of the Tribunal as well as for delaying the implementation of the final order, in the light of judgment in State of Haryana vs. Mohinder Singh (2OO7) 73 SCC 606 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated abuse of process and held that frivolous proceedings deserve dismissal with costs.

¶35

The point that arises for consideration is:

¶36

Whether the review applicants have made out a case demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 12.11.2025, insofar as the award of interest at 16.700/o p.a. is concerned and to grant 6-90/0 interest, as prayed for?

¶37

At the outset, it is well settled that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate power. However, it is equally setued that where there is a manifest error apparent ,^ rn" r"rnWOW

¶38

(-/

¶39

Page 5 of6

¶40

Rev.Appln.No.03/2025 in O A 1792 I 2Ot7

¶41

or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal, review is maintainable.

¶42

The grievance of the review applicants is not a mere dissatisfaction with the rate of interest, but that the Tribunal, while awarding interest at 76.700/o p,a., has not recorded any independent reasons as to the reasonableness of such rate, particularly in the backdrop of the long pendency of proceedings and substantial recovery made by sale of secured assets.

¶43

A perusal of the order dated 12.11.2025 shows that the interest was granted primarily on the basis of contractual terms, without an explicit discussion on whether such rate remains reasonable. This assumes signiflcance in light of the settled legal position that grant of interest, even if based on contract/ is subject to judicial scrutiny.

¶44

It is not in dispute that the respondent has already realized a substantial amount of Rs.53.80 crores by sale of secured assets. Despite such recoveries, interest at 16.70o/o p.a. has been applied on the entire outstanding for a prolonged period exceeding a decade. In the case of Smt, D. Sandhya Bhaskar Sridevi & Anr, vs. Federal Bank Ltd. Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata reduced the rate of interest from 15.48olo to 9olo while following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in c,K. sasankan vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited t2OO9 (11) SCC 601, which is apposite to the case on hand.

¶45

The^judgments relied upon by the respondent, including Kamlesh Verma vs, Mayawati and Saniay Kumar Agarwal^ys, State Tax Officer, undoubtedly lay down that review cannot be an appeal in disguise. HoweveT, the present case stands on a dirrerent t.ilW|r|*r",

¶46

Page 6 of⁶

¶47

Rev.Appln'No'^{03l2O25 in OA L79212017}

¶48

pointed out is^{not seeking re-appreciationof evidence' but correction of} a manifest^{omission in exercisingjudicial discretion'}

¶49

The absence^{of any discussionon the impact of such recoveries'} coupled with^{the prolonged pendency, renders the award of interest} vulnerableonthegroundofnon-exerciseofjudicialdiscretion.Under suchcircumstances,itisfeltjustandpropertograntinterest@9oloP'a' simple from^{the date of application till the date of order'}

¶50

Accordingly,^{the Review Application No' 03/2025 is allowed by} modifying the^{order dated 12'11'2025 to the limited extent of interest} @9olo^{p.a. simplein place of L6'7Oo/op'a' simple'from the date of filing} of the OA till^realization.

¶51

Issue^{modifiedRecovery Certificate accordingly'}

¶52

No costs,^{Communicate a copy of this order to the parties} concerned and^{uploadin the official website'}

¶53

(Typed to my dictati-on by^{tle PS! c9!f-7tedtsigned andpronouncedbv me in theopen} 'court on this the 15h day of April, 2026)'

¶54

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Limited v. Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Limited v. Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s Rr Industries

Canara Bank versus K. Satyaranayana

Canara Bank versus Sri Harikanth Etikala

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Pabbati Srikanth

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Gopi Krishna Pulimaddi

State Bank of India versus Tiara Plastic Corporation