Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA on 11 November 2025
qb
R.A. No. 11 of 2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW
Present: Pravas Kumar Singh9 Presiding Officer Review Application No. 11 of 2024
Dated 1 1.11.2025 .
1. Sumit Kumar Sharma and another, Son
of
Shri
Devendra
Kumar
Sharma9
Resident of First Floor, Plot No.109
Govindpuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
– 201013
Smt. Ruchi Sharma, Wife of Shi Sumit
Kumar Sharma, Resident of First Floor,
Plot No.10, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh – 201013 .
2.
–-–- Applicants
versus
Canara Bank, Branch Office situated at
Retail Asset HUB, Maliwara Chowk,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201001,
through its Authorized Officer.
–-–-- Respondent.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant-bank: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Nikhil 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 filed by the applicant bank to recall review that order dated 06.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.378 of 2022 by the said order. The SA filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was allowed with cost and the A SJ PBr \-
P
R.A. No. 11 of 2024 SARFAESI action based on possession noticed dated 13.01.2021 was set aside.
2. Admittedly, the SA No.378 of 2022 was filed by the applicant (respondent) against the SARFAESI proceeding initiated by the respondent bank.
3. It is stated that the SA application was listed for hearing on 07.10.2024 and the respondent bank in the SA was in hope that some date of hearing will be fixed. However, all of a sudden it was found that the SA is fixed for order.
4. It is stated that in the written statement the applicant (respondent-bank) had annexed the copy of the possession notice dated 13.01.2021, however without considering the same by the impugned order this Tribunal allowed; the SA on ground that possession notice was not served.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent in the SA has objected the move of recall review of the judgment dated 06.11.2024. It submitted that review of any judgment comes within the purview of Rule 5_A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules9 1993 deals with it reads as under:
a. Any part which considering itseVagWieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on = == ea ::iTs: =1 r : : e 7:::: t :o : b: == == e::Th eofo ::: r : : :: e • P = r = ? ? ( t h i r W 1 : a: : :::rTa : j J = =II:e : ih :s :TclmIll i= = = can granted, it shall Want the sar7ze \ (-7~
.+)
R.A. No.11 of 2024
6. It is submitted that the applicant bank wants to get the judgment reviewed in the guise of an appeal. It is submitted that instead of filing any appeal, the applicant bank has filed a review petition which is not maintainable as this Tribunal cannot hear order appeal of its own order.
7. In view of the discussion, I find that the grievance of the applicant bank cannot be addressed in the review application.
8. Accordingly, the Review Application being not maintainable is dismissed. File be consigned to record room. r R\>A [Pravas Kuma;:Slngr,] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this llth Day of November, 2025. .~ ,, [Pravas Kumar Smg,1] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. (Mugish)