Ms IRIS Electronic India Pvt Ltd and Others vs AXIS BANK on 5 February 2026

ORDER

This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review the judgment/order dated 16.2.2023 passed in the OA no. 838/2018 by this Tribunal.

it is submitted by the applicant that the defendant repeatedly approached the bank for settlement of account on NPA and also requested for OTS but the bank never came forward to accept the offer and to reject the same. The bank issued Demand Notice under SARFAESI Act but the same was published in “Morning India" and “Sunmarg" which are least spread newspapers in the locality. The bank has also rejected the representation of the applicant submitted \ / ~W b/\ d\ ’

DRT. PATN A RA 03 of 2023 IOI under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI act without considering the objection of the applicant. The account of the applicant was fit for up gradation from NPA according to the guidelines of RBI but the bank did not consider the same and published the sale notice for auction of the property. The applicant has also approached Hon'ble High Court by filing CWJC No. 8511 of 2017 which was disposed on 31.01.2018 with the direction to approach the DRT, Patna. Accordingly, the applicant filed SA 205/2018 which was dismissed on 16.12.2019. The property of the applicants was auctioned on 18.10.2019 and the same was confirmed on 02.11.2020. The Hon’ble Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and law involved in this Case. The order and judgment dated 16.02.2023 passed without considering this fact that the Bank against their dues of Rs.149 lakhs already realized Rs.203 lacs after selling the property of applicants in the year 2019 itself. The bank has charged penalty and compounding interest over the NPA amount. The bank has also not explained the offer of applicants for OTS. Hence, the Judgment and Certificate passed in OA 838 of 2018 is fit to be reviewed.

3. considered the contention of the applicant and perused the case records.

On perusal of records it appears from Order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal that even after many opportunities, applicants have neither filed a service report nor taken any fresh steps for service of notice upon respondents.

5. 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, VN'

DRT, PATN A RA 03 of 2023 IOI 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 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.”

This review petition is mainly on the ground against the action taken under SARFAESI Act by the respondent bank of non- appreciation of the pleadings, facts and evidence and the law which is beyond the scope of inquiry under Rule 5A. The phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of record" can’t be construed as denovo re-appreciation of facts and evidence.

in my opinion, the grounds as mentioned in the Review petition, relate to appreciation of facts, evidence and the law. The scope of enquiry under the review application is not extended to revisit or de novo appraisal of evidence. Neither this application discloses any arithmetical, clerical error apparent on the face of record, nor has it been pointed out during the course of arguments. Apart from this the applicant has also been negligent in the service of notice upon respondents as reported by the Ld. Registrar. As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and dismissed accordingly Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 05TH Day of February, 2026. Dictated & corrected by me. /J';:+ [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna