ICICI BANK LIMITED vs SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL on 29 January 2026

1. The Applicant Bank had filed the present Original Applicatlon uls 19 of and Bankruptcy Act on }sl(j)Ulg against the Defendants for (Rupees Fourty Three [ac, Fifty Five Thousand Seventy Slx and Paisa interest and other reliefs as stated, which has been decreed. R of of tu. only) with

2. Thls M.A has been brought by the appllcani for setting-aslde the order dated passed in OA.no' L}gtfi9 and further to order status quo' qua the proP€rty ex-party iudBment dated 13'09'24 passed in OA. No' 129U19' An alternate for restoration of OA' No' 1291/19 to its orlginal no'

3. I have heard the Learned Counsels and peruse the record' The applicant had W.P. no. 44364/25 before the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court has dispose the M.A' within the period of @ days' I find that notice of OA applicant and delivery was confirmed after which the OA preceded dated 13.09'2024 the OA was decreed in favour of the applicant' being that at the request of DefEndants no. 1 to 4, the applicants bank 17.22 lakh and ACC of Rs' 29'95 Lakh, aggregatint to Rs' 41'17 Lakh on conslderation of the same the defendant no. 1 to 3 are borrowers and guarontors created all the required documents' The onlY grievance of the the ATL facilltY was regularized and complete outstandlng amount was Paid loan account was closed'

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent and they will state the same before Rule 5A of DRT Rules reads as below' bank submits that admittedly AIt the Secovery Officer' I find that asfar [5A Revtew' (1). Any porty considerlng itsetl oggrieved bythe Trlbunot on occount of some mistoke of error oPParent ol the record desires to obtoln o revlew of the order mode agoinst moy oPPIY for o review ol the order to the Tribunal order (2). No aPPticatlon lor revtew sholl be mode after the explry ol a period ol (thittY daYs) from the dste ol the order and no such shall be entertoined unless ft is accomPanied bY on offidavit opplicotlon. {3). Where it aPqeors b the Tilbunol thot there is no ground lor o review, it sholl reied the olllication (butwhere the ls ol oPlaion that the oPPllotion) tor review shot! be granted, gront the some: (2). Providedthatno such opplicoilon shall be gronted previous notice to the oqlosite Potty $ enabte him to oq4eor ond heord in ol which is aPPlied for'l (Pravas Kumar Presldlng officer DRT: LUCKNOW lncharge: DRT JabalPur the aside The by an order on the which hod mode if set has set thls Tribunal to sent uPon the .l ATL Of ,RS. har been closed as that polnt ln ls MA in ofiicer shall vlew of the suplott ofthe otder, o review ex-Parte feels that and in no. 4as that at 2020