Baba Steel Fabricators vs India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd on 4 October 2025

JUDGMENT

1. 1. This Review application has been filed by the Applicant who was the Applicant in SA No: 474/2019 with a prayer to modify the judgement dated 07-12-2020 passed in SA No: 474/2019 and hold both the Demand Notices dated 10-01-2019 as valid and direct the Respondent FI to initiate fresh SARFAESI action after issuing fresh notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act.

2. 2. The brief contentions of the Applicants are that this Tribunal vide order dated 07-12-2020 has partially allowed SA No: 474/2019 and both the **demand notices dated 10.01.2019** issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of **Term Loan-I** and **Term Loan- II** were declared to be valid, except for the levy of foreclosure charges.

3. 3. The Applicant has submitted the following grounds for review of this application :

1. a) That this Tribunal has rightly observed that foreclosure charges of **₹1,16,541.67** (Term Loan-I) and **₹1,76,235.72** (Term Loan-II) were contrary to policy and therefore not legally recoverable.

2. b) Once such unlawful charges were included, the total demand amount became inaccurate and unenforceable under the SARFAESI Act.

- c) Since the demand notice under Section 13(2) forms the very foundation for all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, inclusion of illegal charges vitiates the entire notice. Consequently, the demand notices themselves become invalid and ought to have been quashed and set aside.

- d) A fresh demand notice, free from foreclosure charges, may be issued in accordance with law.

- e) That this Tribunal has already held foreclosure charges to be illegal vide judgement dated 07-12-2020, but simultaneously upheld the validity of the demand notices. This contradiction is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore may be corrected by way of review.

- f) The Respondent's affidavit reveals that the demand notice was shown as delivered at "**Nanpura Centre**", whereas none of the applicants were residing at that address.

- g) Further, the demand notice was published in the **Ahmedabad edition** of a newspaper, though the applicants have no residence in Ahmedabad.

- h) This constitutes violation of **Rules 3(1) and 3(4)** of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 which require proper service of notice.

- i) Non-compliance with these mandatory provisions renders the enforcement action invalid and this Tribunal, however, failed to appreciate this material irregularity, which is again an error apparent on the record.

- j) Although this Tribunal held that symbolic possession and publication were as per the SARFAESI Act, the publication was not in conformity with **Rule 8(2)** of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

- k) The order of the District Magistrate, Surat dated 26.07.2019, passed on the Respondent's application under Section 14, effectively defeats the object of the SARFAESI Act, which requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards before possession can be taken.

- l) Respondent No. 2 had delegated authority to Respondent No. 1 for continuation of enforcement till 15.12.2019.

- m) The findings of this Tribunal in paragraphs 26 to 31 upholding such delegation are contrary to the SARFAESI Act, as the Act does not permit delegation of powers to take possession.

- n) The assignment dated 30.09.2019 transferred the status of "secured creditor" to Respondent No. 2. From that date, only Respondent No. 2 was vested with legal authority to initiate or continue action under the SARFAESI Act.

- o) On the record itself, it is clear that the Respondent FI failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and even this Tribunal had observed that the inclusion of foreclosure charges made the notice defective. Therefore, the demand notices cannot be upheld as valid.

On these grounds, it has been prayed that the judgement of this Tribunal dated 07-12-2020 passed in SA No: 474/2019 be corrected and instead of allowing the SA partly, the SA may be totally allowed.

- 4. The Respondent FI on the other hand has objected this Review Application on the ground that the present Review Application filed by the Applicant is nothing but a classic example of misrepresentation, suppression of true facts, and deliberate manipulation. The Applicants, with mala fide intent, are attempting to mislead this

Tribunal and create unwarranted hurdles in the legitimate recovery process undertaken by the Respondent Company as a secured creditor. It is further submitted that the Miscellaneous Application has been drafted in a casual and cavalier manner and it is vague, cryptic, and devoid of specific pleadings. Moreover, it does not disclose any cause of action, fails to establish jurisdiction, and does not even address the aspect of limitation and on this ground alone, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

1. 5. The Respondent FI has further submitted that the scope of review is confined only to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and the impugned order dated **07.12.2020** was passed by this Tribunal after careful consideration of all pleadings, documents, and arguments of both the parties. It is further submitted that the Applicants have again raised the ground of non-service of Demand Notice but the Respondent FI has duly complied with the requirements of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act read with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

On these grounds, it has been submitted that the Review Application is devoid of any merit and deserves to be rejected with cost.

1. 6. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the records. At the outset, this Review Application appears to be a memorandum of appeal or an application for revision in guise of a Review Application. The scope of review is very limited and it is confined to the limit of correction of arithmetical or clerical error in the judgement or **correction of any error apparent on the record**. While through this Review Application, the Applicant has challenged every aspect of the judgement dated 07-12-2020 starting from the observations made by this Tribunal with regard to notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act to finding on symbolic possession under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act and also further to findings of this Tribunal with regard to proceedings and order under Section 14

SARFAESI Act. Bare perusal of the Review Application makes it clear that in fact, it is a Memorandum of Appeal or application for revision but very cleverly named as Review Application.

1. 7. Bare reading of judgement dated 07-12-2020 passed by this Tribunal, clearly establishes that the judgement was passed after discussing each and every aspect of the facts and circumstances available on record and with regard to all the relevant issues at hand. Even the findings which was challenged by the Applicant in this Review Application, which relates to holding the notice under Section 13(2) as valid, except for the levy of foreclosure charges, is based on concrete findings.

2. 8. Therefore, if the Applicant thinks that the Section 13(2) notice cannot be partially held valid and if one part of the notice is found incorrect, the whole Section 13(2) notice should be held invalid and Section 13(2) notice being the genesis of SARFAESI action, the entire SARFAESI action should be held invalid and illegal, this preposition cannot be put under the category of error apparent on the record. It is well reasoned finding of this Tribunal and if in the opinion of the Applicant this finding is not based on legal reasons, the remedy available to the Applicant is to challenge this judgement through an Appeal.

3. 9. It is beyond the scope of review to modify or correct any findings which is based on legal and factual reasoning. That finding may be legally justified or not justified in the views of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal or any superior Court but as far as this Tribunal is concerned, it has no power to decide an appeal or revision against its own judgement and here barely by going through the Review Application, there remains no doubt that each and every finding of this Tribunal given in the judgement dated 07-12-2020 has been challenged through this Review Application, which can be done only in the case of Appeals or Revisions, not in a Review Application.

10. This is the reason, why this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that this is a Memorandum of Appeal or application for revision in guise of a Review Application which is not maintainable in this Tribunal which has passed this judgement dated 07-12-2020 itself.

11. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has relied on **Mathew Varghese v/s M. Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610**, in which case the **Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that enforcement under Section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act must strictly conform to statutory procedure, ensuring that recovery does not override constitutional and legal protections.** This citation appears to be out of context in this case as it has nothing to do with the merits of the Review Application. Similarly, the citations by Ld. Counsel for the Applicant of judgement of **Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the matter of Swastik Agency Versus State Bank of India in para-39, State Bank of India vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. karayogam & anr MANU/SC/1186/2001: (2001) 10 SCC191** and citation of **Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Income Tax Office Vs. Seghu B. Setty in AIR 1964 Sc page1473 para-40** are not applicable in this case. Similarly, citation of **R/Letters Patent Appeal No: 159 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No: 19920 of 2019 in case of Punjab National Bank Versus M/s. Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd** also appears to be irrelevant with regard to this Review Application.

12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in the considered view of this Tribunal, this Review Application is completely devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

**ORDER**

1. 1. In view of above discussions, the present Review Application being devoid of any merit **deserves to be dismissed and disposed of with no order as to cost.**

**Order accordingly.**

No other points have been raised before this Tribunal by Ld. Counsel for either parties.

Let copies be supplied as per rules.

File be consigned to records.

Pronounced in the Open Tribunal on **4th October, 2025.**

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

US