M/s. BSS Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs BANK OF BARODA on 3 September 2025

1. 1. The Applicants have filed the present Review Application for review of the judgment/order dated 21.09.2019 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.280/2018 and to decide the said SA afresh. The Respondent Bank has filed reply to the present Review Application vide Ex.R/06 and has denied the statements and averments made by the Review Application.

2. 2. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

3. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that SA No.280/2018 was filed by the present Applicants challenging action taken by the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act. The said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.09.2019. The Applicants had engaged Ld. Counsel Mr. Arpit Mehta to represent them in the said SA. Though the Applicants had not instructed their previous Ld. Counsel to submit before this Tribunal that the Applicants will vacate the property in question within a period of one month or four months as observed by this Tribunal in the impugned order dated 21.09.2019, this Tribunal has passed the impugned order on

the basis of the statement made by Ld. Counsel Mr. Mehta. Not only that, neither none of the Applicants was present on the date on which the impugned order was passed nor the impugned order was signed by the Applicants. He further submitted that Applicant No.2 is suffering from the disease of Schizophrenia and not in a position to take the decision. Hence, the question of such type of instruction to the advocate by Applicant No.2 does not arise. Similarly, Applicant No.3 is about more than 80 years to age and practically it is not possible for him to give instruction to the advocate to make such type of statement before this Tribunal for seeking time for vacation of the property. There is no any other place for the Applicants to reside. He further submitted that the decision taken by previous Ld. Counsel Mr. Arpit Mehta on behalf of the Applicants is not at all binding to the Applicants herein as they have never given such instructions to him. The said Ld. Counsel had withdrawn the aforesaid SA from this Tribunal in absence of any written communication from the Applicants. Hence, the present Review Application may be allowed.

1. 4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the Applicants have not come before this Tribunal with clean hands. The impugned order was passed by this Tribunal on 21.09.2019, whereas the present Review Application has been filed by the Applicants on 25.10.2019 beyond the prescribed time limit of 30 days. Hence, the present Review Application deserves to be dismissed.

2. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank has further submitted that the Applicants have already waived their right, but in order to defeat and frustrate the action of the Respondent Bank initiated under SARFAESI Act, present Review Application is filed. He further submitted that Review Application of the judgment/order can be made only where glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in. Hence, he submitted that the present Review Application deserves to be dismissed.

6. Considering rival submission of parties, it is pertinent to refer to the authority given by the Applicants to their Ld. Counsel Mr. Arpit Mehta by executing Vakalatnama in SA No.280/2018, which reads as under:

*"I/We the under signed Applicant do hereby appoint and authorize SHRI ARPIT Y. MEHTA, Advocate and to act, appear, plead, compromise or withdraw for me/us the above matter and to engage and appoint any other Advocate(s) to act, appear, plead, compromise or withdraw for me/us the above matter whenever my said Advocate thinks proper to do so; and the same shall be binding to me/us as I/we have done the same myself/otherselves.*

*If you are engaged in any other Court or before any other Authority in any other matter, or because of any reason whatsoever, you are unable to conduct my/our matter, you would not be under obligation for conducting my/our matter and it would be my/our responsibility to take care of my/our matter. It is my/our responsibility to remain personally present in my/our matter in the Court when the same is listed for hearing and it is my/our duty to ascertain the next date of hearing. If I/we do not remain present in the court or do not co-operate you in the matter, you are entitled to retire from the matter and the same shall be binding to me/us.*

*I/We appoint and authorize you to do all acts legally and necessary to conduct the said matter in all respects, whether herein specified or not, as may be proper and expedient.*

*And I/We hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done on my/our behalf under or by virtue of this VAKALATNAMA or of the usual practice in such matter."*

7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid authority given by the Applicants to their previous Counsel, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Applicants had authorized their advocate to compromise/settle and/or withdraw or agree to the withdrawal of the said matter. Under the written authority (i.e. Vakalatnama), Ld. Counsel Mr. Mehta has acted and the Applicants have enjoyed the interim protection for one month and they returned with claim that instruction for withdrawal and vacating the possession was not given. This cannot sustain. Simply by saying that the previous Advocate has not

acted as per instruction, the Applicants cannot escape from their responsibility.

1. 8. It is further observed that there is no proof or hint of the fact that the Applicants have given any notice to their previous Counsel, or filed complaint against him before any authority, including the Bar Council. It is very easy to condemn the Advocate and make him a scapegoat, as per convenience of parties, but it does not inspire confidence. The allegations of Applicants against their previous Counsel appear to be tailor-made excuse, which is not acceptable.

2. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the grounds set out by the Applicants for review in the present application are not tenable. Hence, following order is passed.

ORDER

- ➤ The present Review Application is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

Let the file be consigned to the record.

(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, AHMEDABAD

Nishita.

40.