Anil Sarawgi vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited on 8 May 2023

**ORDER**

1. 1. The Appellant has filed the present Chamber Appeal against the order dated 03/06/2022 passed by Ld. Registrar declining registration of the proposed Review Application in view of the fact that there is a provision of Appeal before Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the order passed by DRT.

2. 2. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and perused the record.

3. 3. It appears that the Appellant sought to file Review Application under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Rules, 1993 read with Section 19(25) of RDDB Act, 1993

for review of the judgment and order dated 29/04/2022 dismissing SA No.401/2019 after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Appellant has averred in the proposed Review Application that the said order suffers from various factual discrepancies and there are errors apparent on the face of record and various contentions, grounds and submission of the Applicant has not been considered by this Tribunal while passing the said judgment and order.

1. 4. In light of aforesaid averments made by the Appellant, it becomes clear that the Applicant is seeking review of the judgment and order dated 29/04/2022 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.401/2019 u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

2. 5. It would be pertinent to look at the provisions of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as under:

**"18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.—** (1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.

*Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:*

*Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent. of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less:*

*Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent of debt referred to in the second proviso.*

*(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder."*

1. 6. On perusal of the aforesaid provision of Section 18, the Appellant is required to file Appeal before Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai if he is aggrieved against the judgment and order passed by this Tribunal in SA No.401/2019 u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2. 7. Moreover, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has also not shown any provision of law under which Review Application is maintainable. Even despite affording liberty to submit judgments in support of maintainability of Review granted vide order dated 01/05/2023, he has not provided any citation in that regard.

3. 8. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of **Kalabharati Advertising V/s. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437**, wherein it has been observed as under:

*"12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar & Anr., AIR*

1965 SC 1457; and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 641).

13. In Patel Narshi Thakersh & Ors. v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273; Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814; Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2186; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 162; and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 705, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in absence of any statutory provision for the same is nullity being without jurisdiction.

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible."

1. 9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the fact that there is no statutory provision providing for review in the SARFAESI Act, the present Review Application is not maintainable and hence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the order passed by Ld. Registrar declining registration of Review Application is not required to be interfered.

2. 10. In the result, present Chamber Appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Court on 8^th day of May, 2023.

(Laxman Madnani) Presiding Officer DRT-II, Ahmedabad

\*ykb\*

Chamber Appeal 02/2022

Date : 08/05/2023

Today this matter has come up for pronouncement of judgment.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Chamber Appeal is dismissed vide a separate detailed order.

Detailed order shall follow.

(Laxman Madnani) Presiding Officer DRT-II, Ahmedabad