MITTAL ISPAT vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK on 31 January 2019

1. By way of the present IA, the applicant prayed to allow the present application and prepone the date of hearing from 31.01.2019 to shortest available date for hearing the application filed for recalling/reviewing the final order dated 24.03.2018 and to decide the various issues which were raised in the proceedings before this Tribunal.

2. Heard on this IA and same is hereby allowed and heard on MA. MA

3. By way of this MA, the applicant herein prayed to recall/review the final orders dated 24.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal and restrain the respondent ARCIL from proceeding further under the provision of Securitization Act qua the property i.e. property admeasuring 5.555 acres of industrial property under R.S. Nos.45/1- 3, 46/4, 46/2, 46/3, situated in Kirumampakkam Revenue Village, Bahour Commune Panchyat, Pondicherry District and declare that the Assignment Agreement dated 22.03.2012 is null and void.

4. It is stated that this Tribunal while passing the final order dated 24.03.2018 in SA, various issues raised have not been adjudicated by this Tribunal and the legal issue have also not been considered by this Tribunal which are vital in nature and requires proper adjudication thus, the present MA has been moved. It is stated that the issue of mortgage has not been dealt with and the issue of assignment is also under dispute. It is also stated that even the assignment deeds placed on record shows that the same are under- valued and the assignment agreements by ARCIL acting in capacity as Trustee of ARCIL SBPS-008i Trust is also under dispute whether it is registered or unregistered Trust. It is also stated that the said Assignment Deeds are unregistered and also under-stamped. Further, he stated that the assignment took place at Mumbai whereas the property is situated at Pondicherry therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s Veena Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Authorized Officer____, , the said assignment is not sustainable thus, he submits that the present review application may be allowed and respondent may be restrain from taking possession of the property in question.

5. Ld. Counsel for the responded bank has strongly objected on the present application and submits that the assignment took place during the pendency of the SA and the respondent was already substituted in the SA proceeding however, applicant never raised any objection regarding the assignment and now in the garb of the review application, the applicant is trying to re-hear the matter as fresh which is not permitted under the SARFAESI Acts and Rules. He also submits that as per Rule 5-A of the DRT Rules, 1993, a review application is maintainable only in case of mistake error apparent on the face of record whereas the applicant failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record of the order dated 24.03.2018 of this Tribunal therefore, he submits that the present MA may be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and gone through the record.

7. In the review application, this Tribunal has limited scope and in the garb of review application, the parties are not entitled for hearing the matter on merits. Admittedly, the issue of assignment was never raised during the proceeding of the SA and even the respondent ARC was duly substituted in place of South Indian Bank therefore, as rightly stated by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that in the review the matter could not be reheard.

8. The power of review has been provided under Rule 5A of the DRT Rules 1993, for convenience, same is extracted herein below: “(1) Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.”

9. Thus, a review application is maintainable only in case of any mistake or error apparent on the face of record whereas in the present MA, the applicant did not raised any error apparent on the face of record of order dated 24.03.2018.

10. Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases has held that the power of review is to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection. Additionally, a review should be entertained only in very exceptional cases.

11. In Smt. Meer Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455, it has been observed by the Apex Court that:

“the Review Court should not act as Appellate Court and the error apparent on the face of the record contemplates that genre of errors which strikes one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long- drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.”

12. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others, 1997(8) SCC 715 and held that: “a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is one which is self-evident and does not require a process of reasoning; distinct from an erroneous decision. A rehearing in the matter for detecting an error in the earlier decision and then correcting it does not fall within the ambit of review jurisdiction.”

13. Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in the matter reported in 2003 (2) MPLJ 499 has expressed the same view after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372 in which it was held that: “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”

14. In the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts, since in the present MA/review application, the applicant did not raised any error apparent on record in order dated 24.03.2018, therefore, the present MA is hereby dismissed.

15. File be closed and consigned to record room. Dasti (Dr. REKHA G. DHAKAR) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI