M.P. POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD. vs BANK OF MAHARASHTRA on 13 July 2023

JUDGMENT

(Dated : 13th July, 2023)

1. The Appticants has fited the present Review Apptication u/r 5A(1) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rutes '1993 on 08112122 assaiting the order dated 11111122 passed by this Tribunal in OA No'- 29t2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.-1 Bank has fited an OA No.-29l2001 for recovery of Rs. 2,40,13,254.00 against the Appticants. The Respondent No.-3 was atso a party Defendant in the said 0A however, no retief was ctaimed against the said Defendant/ Respondent being a formal party. A Judgment was passed in the said OA on 22103102 aggrieved by it the Appticants preferred an appeal which was attowed by

RA 08/22 setting aside the Judgment and the case was remanded back to this Tribunal to decide afresh. subsequently after hearing the Parties a Judgment was passed on 16t03t12 which was again cha[tenged before the Hon'ble DRAT in Appear R-65/12 and white attowing the appeal the Hon'bte DRAT has remanded back the record of the case for deciding afresh in view of the judgment of the Hon'bte M.P. High Court in lA.P. Electricity Boord vs Reserve Bank of lndia &, Ors. and the directions/observation given by the Hon'bte DRAT vide order dated 2olo2l2oo9. The case was taken up on the record of this Tribunat and after hearing alt the Parties and giving due consideration to the Judgment of the Hon'bte High Court of M'P' in WP 153911997 as we[[ as the orders passed by the Hon'bte DRAT this Tribunal vide Judgment/order dated 11t11/22 has attowed the oA however coming to the conctusion that the Respondent-Bank/Appticant-Bank therein in the oA is entitted to recover the Principat Amount due in alt the 12 accounts with pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. as on the date of fiting of the OA, i.e. 21 /1212000, with costs. Aggrieved by this Order the Applicants have preferred the present Review AppLication contending that the DRT had comptetety overlooked the material avaitabte on record and therefore, the Judgment passed by this Tribunat appears on account of some mistake or error apParent on face of record which deserves to be reviewed. The Appticants averred that the Respondent No.-2 is a formal party being one of the creditor and have not ctaimed any retief against the said Respondent.

3. The Respondent No.'1 Bank through its repty has denied atl the averments made by the Appticants in their RA. lt was contended that the calcutation made by the CA appointed by the Appticants are incorrect as the catculation submitted by the CA of the Defendants and the calculation as made by the CA appointed by the Respondent-Bank as wetl as the calcutation made by the independent CA appointed by Hon'bte DRAT defer from each other. lt is also contended that the direction of the Hon'bte DRAT for refund of Rs. 1 Crore to the Appticants are not against the Respondent-Bank and since this amount is lying with the DRT by way of STD in favour of DRT Jabatpur. lt is further contended that there is no merit in the instant review application and deserves to be dismissed more so the scope for review is very timited and the Appticants also failed to prove any mistake apparent on the face of the record.

J RA08/22

4. The Counsel for Appticants vehementty argued that Respondent-Bank itsetf by filing Memo in the OA copy of which is fited as Ann. A-13 in RA has admitted the outstanding to be Rs. 1,30,86,626.45 then the outstanding of Rs. Rs. 1,57,95,844.00 as ordered by the DRT in its Judgment dated 11111 122 is an apparent mistake on the face of record. He further contended that the Appticants have admitted to have received Rs. 1 core and therefore in the judgment it was wrong[y mentioned that the Applicants have admittedty received the said amount. He atso contended that the amount of Rs. 52 Lac and Rs. 25 Lac deposited by the Appticants were not adjusted by the Bank and to this effect there was no order passed in the impugned Judgment which is atso an error on the fact of record.

5. The Counsel for Respondent-Bank on the other hand argued that the ground with regard to quantum of dues, i.e., Rs, 1,30,86,626.45 was never taken up in OA and therefore it cannot be taken as a ground by fiting RA. He further argued that the refund/adjustment of amount can be considered before the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceedings and no specific order in this regard is required in the Judgment since the Hon'bte DRAT has atso directed the Recovery Officer to consider this issue in the proceedings pending before him. The counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has rightty passed the order for recovery of Rs. 1,57,95,844.00 which is the sum total of Ledger balance in the l2 accounts as on filing of the OA and this fact was atso specificatly observed in Para 11 of the Judgment dated 11 111122 and therefore the contention on behalf of the Appticants that as to from whether the Tribunat has catcutated the said amount is not mentioned is a wrong statement, The Counsel contended that scope of review application is very timited and the Appticants have failed to prove any visibte wrong has been done by the Tribunal and therefore, it is prayed for dismissing the apptication of the Appticants.

6. Heard both the Counsets and perused the Judgment daled 11111122 as wetl as the record of the case, As far as the contention of the Appticants with regard to the quantam of outstanding dues, in Para 5.23 the Appticant- Bank has specificatty given ledger balance against each loan account without apptying unapptied interest is considered to the Principat outstanding as on the date of fiting of the oA and detait of amount in ascertaining the total dues is also clearty mentioned in Para-11 of the Judgment dated 11 111 122. Therefore, the argument on behal,f of the Appticants in this regard is + RA 08/22 basetess and is accordingty decided in negative. The Appticant referred to Memo which is annexed at A- 1 3 atongwith Review Application and is atteged to be part of oA29l2O01 stating that the Bank has reduced the tiabitity to Rs. 1.30 Crore and odd. However, neither the Applicant-Bank nor the Defendants had pressed this Memo or had been pointed out by any of the parties to oA at any stage of proceedings in oA. The Defendants have atso not after submission of such Memo fited any apptication f or lor amended Written Statement or seek direction from this Tribunal for reducing the outstanding dues as claimed in the retief ctause of oA. Even during final argument of the OA the Defendants did not bring to the knowtedge of the Tribunat towards such admission made by the Appticant-Bank. lt was for the first time white fiting RA the Appticants/Defendants therein the oA has brought this fact before this Tribunat. white adjudicating RA no new facts can be considered and has onty to see if any fact considered has been left out or any mistake apparent on the face of the record'

7. Now coming to the point with regard to non'consideration of catcutation of amount made by the CA apPointed by the Appticants is concerned, the same is directed by the Hon'bte DRAT to fite before the Tribunat and simitarty, the Respondent'Bank has atso fited the catcutation of amount made by the CA appointed by it. However, there is no vividity between the catculation of both the CA and differ from each other. lt was atso submitted by the Counsel for Respondent-Bank that Hon'ble DRAT has atso appointed one independent CA whose catcutation atso differ from the calculations atready on record of case, Therefore, this Tribunal has in the Judgment dated 11111122 considering this aspect has reached on an opinion to attow the ledger batance as on the date of fiting of the OA with pendentelite and future interest @10% compl,ying with the order of Hon'bte High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP 1539/1997.

8. The Counset for Appticants contended that they have not received Rs. 1 Core as per order dated 15/03/11 passed by Hon'bte DRAT in Appeat R- 581 12005 but in the Judgment dated 11 111 122 at Para-1 1 it is observed that the Applicants have admittedly received the said amount which is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Appticants have also at Page 129 of RA annexed copy of order passed in OA Ex 53/02 passed by the Recovery Officer on 16105111 in support of their contention. The Counsel for Respondent-Bank has also fairly conceded that the said amount has not been

RA08t22 refunded titt date as the same is lying in the form of STDR in favour of DRT Jabatpur and untess it is reteased by DRT refund cannot be made. Considering the submission made on behatf of both the Parties and perusal of record, I am of the opinion that there is an error apparent on the face of record to this extent. However the order passed in OA Ex 53/03 by the Recovery Officer is self-explanatory. Thus the parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer for refund of Rs' 1 Crore as directed by Hon'bte DRAT in Appeat R-581 /2005 and the tine of words in Para-11 of the Judgment dated 11111 122 "ond odmittedly the Defendont No.'l had received this amount," hereby stands expunged. The Recovery Officer of this Tribunal is directed to refund Rs. 1 Crore in whatever form the same is tying to the Appticant-Bank as per the direction of Hon'bte DRAT to the Applicant No.- 1/Defendant No.-1 therein the OA.

9. As far as appropriation of amount of Rs. 25 Lac, i.e, balance of Rs' 1.25 Crore, deposited before this Tribunal, Rs. 25 Lac deposited before Hon'ble DRAT and Rs. 52,34,651 /- deposited with the Respondent-Bank are concerned, it is directed that the same can be raised before the Recovery officer in the recovery proceedings who shatt pass necessary direction for its appropriation.

10. with the above observation the Review Apptication fited on behatf of the Appticants stands disposed of as partty allowed. No order as to cost 4-2 D

\3 (Ram Niwas Patet) Presidine Officer