Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Govind Tulsidas Balwa vs Syndicate bank on 21 March 2025
Exh-7
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD**
**Present: Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay, Presiding Officer**
**REVIEW APPLICATION No.09 OF2016**
**IN**
**ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.186 OF 2012**
Date of Institution :30/09/2016
Date of Judgment :21/03/2025
Govind Tulsidas Balwa,
Proprietor of Reliance Associates,
Having address at
Reliance Associates,
Shop No.C/9-10, Ground Floor,
Green Park, Sec-8,
Tagore Road,
Gandhidham, Kutchh
..... Applicant
**Versus**
Syndicate Bank,
Having address at
Plot No.240, Nahata Chambers,
Sector 12/B,
Gandhidham, Kutchh – 370 201
..... Respondent
**Present :**
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S. S. Jadeja Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. A. P. Joshi
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. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Review Application under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Rules, 1993 read with Section 19(25) of RDDB Act, 1993 seeking review / recalling of order dated 31/08/2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.186/2012.
2. 2. It appears form the pleadings and evidences filed by the parties that in OA No.186/2012, Registrar of this Tribunal had, vide order dated 20/02/2013, closed the stage for filing Written Statement / Reply. Therefore, the Defendant i.e. present Applicant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Written Statement, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 21/08/2014, subject to depositing cost of Rs.3,000/- by the Defendant with DRT Bar Association. The Applicant herein i.e. the Defendant could not deposit the cost of Rs.3,000/- in compliance of the said order for the reasons mentioned in the present Review Application. Thereafter the OA was listed on 24/11/2014 on which date, Ld. Counsel for the Defendant could not attend the Tribunal and hence, vide order dated 24/11/2014, this Tribunal ordered for striking off the defence of the Defendant. Thereafter this Tribunal passed impugned judgment on 31/08/2016 for issuance of Recovery Certificate and directing the Defendant to pay an amount of Rs.74,66,019.48 with interest thereon @ 12% from the date of Original Application till realization to the Applicant Bank.
1. 3. The Respondent Bank has filed its affidavit-in-reply vide Exh.R/6 and denied the averments and contentions raised in the Review Application. It has further contended that in spite of granting sufficient time to deposit the cost of Rs.3,000/-, the Applicant failed to deposit the cost amount and therefore, this Tribunal passed order dated 24/11/2014 ordering to strike off the defence. The Applicant did not remain present before this Tribunal from 2014 to 2016. The Applicant has not shown any valid and legal reason for filing the present Review Application. The Respondent has specifically denied that the property mentioned in Schedule-I is a joint family property and therefore no recovery can be made by the Bank from the said property. Thus, the Respondent has urged to dismiss the present Review Application.
4. In light of the aforesaid admitted facts, it cannot be said that the judgment and order dated 31/08/2016 contains any mistake or error on the face of record. It is required to be noted that under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, there is no power of "Review" of order passed by DRT. However, Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provides for review powers in case of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Rule 5A of DRT Procedure Rules reads as under:
"5A. Review.—
*(1) Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake of 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 sixty 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:*
*Provided that no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party to enable him to appear and to be heard in support of the order, a review of which is applied for."*
1. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Applicant herein has failed to show any mistake or error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 31/08/2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.186/2012 cannot be reviewed. Therefore, the present Review Application is devoid of merits and it is required to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order:
**O R D E R**
The present Review Application is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
File be consigned to records.
Pronounced in the Open Tribunal on 21<sup>st</sup> March, 2025.
**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**
\*ykb