CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs M/s Sasa Musa Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. on 28 January 2026

ORDER

This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review /#,\

DRT.PATNA RA 15 of 2023 [OI the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in the OA 74/2021 by this Tribunal.

2. During pendency of review application, the applicant bank filed limitation petition by way of IA 491/2023 for condonation of delay.

3. On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicant bank that upon getting the knowledge of order dated 31.03.2023, the bank applied for certified copy of order on 20.05.2023 which was delivered to applicant bank on 12.06.2023. Hence, limitations may be counted from the date of receipt of order. Accordingly, the present review application has been filed within time.

4. It is further submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicant bank that the abovesaid OA was dismissed as infructuous referring the section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the ground that the applicant bank moved before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against the corporate debtor for corporate insolvency resolution process but the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in holding that keeping the legal machinery at halt for the propose of recovery and keeping the suit u/s 19 of the RDB Act and the execution of recovery certificate, if any, issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in abeyance, makes the already instituted Original Application altogether infructuous rather keeping “the legal machinery at halt" and “the suit u/s 19 of the RDB Act in abeyance", is to remain dormant and no further proceeding is to be taken up till insolvency proceeding is live before NCLT. It is further submitted that the word “halt” and “abeyance" mean a pause only on further proceeding under section 19 of the RDB Act, does not become infructuous altogether. Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in OA 74/2021 may be reviewed.

6. On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent no. 4 & S submitted that the present application is barred by limitation of law and the aq \\

DRT,PATN A RA 15 of 2023 [OI provisions of the section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply on the application for review filed under Rule 5A of the RDB Act. Moreover, the present RA was filed without supporting a limitation petition. As such, the Ld. Registrar ought to have rejected the Review Application. The Review Application has to be filed within 30 days from the date of order and it is not relevant when was the certified copy of the order date ready or when was the same delivered. The order dated 31.03.2023 was uploaded on the Tribunal’s website on the same day. It is further submitted that there is no error apparent in the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal.

7. Considered the contentions of the applicant bank and perused the case records.

8. The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant under rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [Procedures] Rules 1993. The rule 5-A 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 records 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.

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 sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application [but where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application] for review shall be granted, it shall grant the same.//

9. No explanation whatsoever has been submitted for the delayed knowledge of the order under review.

10. This review petition is mainly on the ground of alleged the abovesaid OA was dismissed as infructuous considering the fact that the applicant bank itself moved before the NCLT but it was also 4p}\\

DRT,PATNA RA 15 of 2023 IOI specifically mentioned therein that it is pre supposes that the bank has kept recovery process at halt.

11. The Applicant will be free to initiate recovery proceedings under the law, if the insolvency petition is dismissed. There will be no legal injury to the applicant. The applicant has not pointed out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the records. The error apparent on the face of record is not a matter of presumption.

12. In view of the above discussion, this petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly along with all pending IAs. Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 28TH Day of January, 2026. Dictated & corrected by me. ;/.-'tO r _y’ #’' V [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna