Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAI KANT SINGH vs BANK OF BARODA on 14 October 2025
a
V’
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW
Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer Review Application No.09 of 2018
Dated 14. 10.2025
1. Jai Kant Singh/ S/o Sri Satya Narayan Singh Resident of Village – Bhawani Nagar, Syothi, Post –
Dighaura,
Sommau, Raibareilly.
Abhay
Kant Singh S/o Sri
Satya
Narayan Singh Resident of Village –
Bhawani Nagar, Syothi, Post-Dighaura,
Sommau, Raibareilly.
2.
Applicants
versus
1. Bank of Baroda, Branch at Station Road, Harchandpur, District – Raibareiily, Uttar Pradesh through its Authorized Officer.
Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh S/o Sri Ram
Padarath Singh, Resident of Ruknapur,
Post – Rahwan, Thana – Harchandpur,
Tehsil – Sadar, District – Raibareilly.
2.
Respondent.
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-bank: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Auction Purchaser: Mr. P. K. Srivastava, Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
1. This Review Application has been brought by the applicant to review the final judgment/order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this J
Tribunal in S. A. No.3 17 of 2017 by judgment dated 29.10.2018 this Tribunal has dismissed the SA.
2. The applicant had brought in SA No.3 17 of 2017 challenging the Securitization proceeding initiated by the respondent bank and prayed a relief for setting aside the possession notice dated 02.11.2017, demand notice dated 01.08.2017, auction notice dated 12.06.2018 in lieu of sale notice dated 02.05.2018 and the sale certificate dated 14.06.2018. 3 . The main contention of the applicant being that the finding of this Tribunal regarding possession notice is contrary to the written objection by the bank and similarly the finding regarding sale notice is also contrary to the actual submission and the SA was decided without considering the documentary evidence.
4. 1 find that order dated 29.10.2018 is well discussed order and every objection raised by the applicant has been mostly dealt with. The scope of review has been dealt with in Rule 5 A of The Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, it reads as under.
1. Any party which 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.
2. No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of (thirty days) from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affIdavit verifying the application.
3. Where it appears to the Tribunal that there is no su#icient ground for a review, it shall reject the application but, where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same:
5. In view of the discussion and the provision read by me. I find that the grievance of the applicant is not covered under the purview of revIew as any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, has not been pointed out and further this tribunal can not hear any review application in guise of an appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed having no merIt. File be consigned to record room. \t, \ [Pravas Kumar iingh] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 14th Day of October, 2025. -~’\„ $ [Pravas Kumar gI' /, I Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (Mugish)