T V EXPORTS vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK on 25 February 2019

1. This R.A. has been filed by the applicants herein with the prayer to allow the present application for review and set aside its order dated 29.11.2010 passed in OA No.93/2009.

2. Facts as succinctly set out in the RA that the impugned order dated 29.11.2009 has passed ignoring various lacunae in the claim of the bank, against the well settled proposition of law and also the facts and the circumstances to the case have been misinterpreted as the bank put misleading and false claims and documents on record. It is stated that the in para 2.5 of the impugned order, which has also been accepted by this Tribunal, the bank claims that total due in the account of the applicants was Rs.2,01,28,095/- and interest @15.5% p.a. was charged on the same and thus, the bank has claimed interest of Rs.21,80,432/- for 7 months on the amount whereas the interest on the said amount at the said rate comes only to Rs.18,19,915.25 thus, charged by the bank comes to 18.577% p.a. against the claim of the bank that it is charging the interest @15.5% p.a. therefore, it is stated that the bank has not been able to explain the excess charge of Rs.3,60,517/- and this Tribunal has also ignored this fact and passed the decree for the entire sum claimed by the bank malafide, arbitrarily and illegally. It is also stated that in para 7.1 of the impugned order, this SC Tribunal has recorded that since applicant No.2 has not claimed that he is an illiterate person, so his claim that he signed the documents under pressure and on assurance of the bank that they were mere formalities was not sustainable however, this Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions of the applicant No.2. It is also stated in para 7.2 of the impugned order this Tribunal has rightly accepted the affidavit given by the applicant No.2 that he was one of the LRs of the Late Dr. B.L. Wadehra and he was competent to given affidavit for continuation of the mortgage in the account of M/s T.W. Exports P. Ltd. however, this Tribunal failed to appreciate that the affidavit was given only by the applicant No.2 whereas the other applicants and LRs of Late Dr. Wadehra has not given any such affidavit or consent while the mortgaged property devolved upon all the LRs of Late Dr. B.L. Wadehra and also bank has not produce any documents showing either the entire mortgaged property. It is also stated that this Tribunal failed to appreciate the legal consequence and malafide activities of the bank in view of the facts as observed in para 7.6 of the impugned order. The applicants also stated that other paras of the impugned order. It is also stated the impugned order suffers from the errors apparent on the record being not in compliance of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Ravindra & Ors. thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside being unconstitutional as the same is violating Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

3. Notice was issued to the respondent bank. Respondent bank has filed its reply.

4. The respondent bank in its reply strongly objected on the present RA and stated that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the present RA is liable to be dismissed with exemplary SC costs. It is stated that the applicants in order to delay the recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officers are blowing hot and cold and are making contradictory averments in order to gain time and delay recovery of the legitimate claim of the respondent bank inspite of the recovery certificate having been issued by this Tribunal and the present RA for review is another attempt to stall the recovery proceedings and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the respondent bank has filed certified copy of the statement of account alognwith the OA which has been exhibited on the record and the contention of the applicants that the bank has charges excess interest of Rs.3,60,517/- is devoid of any merit, it is stated that the applicants herein are will defaulters and the respondent bank is entitled to charge interest at the contractual rate in order to recover its legitimate debt.

5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The applicants have moved the present application for review of the order dated 29.11.2010. Before proceeding further, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for review/recall has to be adjudicated. The power to review is provided under Rule 5(A) of the DRT (Procedures) Rules, 1993 which reads as under “(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.”

7. Therefore, a review is maintainable only in two circumstances i.e.

(i) where there is a mistake and/or (ii) there is error apparent on the face of record.

8. The applicant of RA are seeking review of final order dated 29.11.2010 of this Tribunal. This Tribunal has limited scope in review application. Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power of review is to SC be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection. Additionally, a review should be entertained only in very exceptional cases.

9. In the present application, the applicants did not raised any error apparent on the face of record of order dated 29.11.2010. The power of review can be exercised only if there is an error apparent on the face of record as held in the decision reported 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.”

10. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others, 1997(8) SCC 715. It was 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.”

11. 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.”

12. In the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts, the present RA/review application in which no error apparent on SC record in order dated 29.11.2010 has been raised by the applicants therefore, the present RA is not maintainable.

13. With the above said directions, this RA is disposed off.

14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties. File be closed and consigned record room. (Dr. REKHA G. DHAKAR) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI Announced in open Court 25th February, 2019