Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SONI AND OTHERS vs SUNDARAM BNP PARIVAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER on 19 February 2021
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
Present: A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer
Dated of order 19.2.2021
In
R.A. No. 04 of 2020
Sl. No. 21 (Jabalpur)
Present:-
<table border="1"><tr><td>Ld. Counsel for the applicant</td><td>Mr. A. Bajpai</td></tr><tr><td>Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank</td><td>Mr. P.A. Quazi</td></tr></table>
Counsel for the applicant stated that the ground taken in the S.A. was not considered in the final order, therefore, the applicant has filed the present review application. The applicant has submitted OTS proposal and had a prospective buyer who was ready to deposit Rs. 1.00 crore for the said property, but the bank had not considered the same and sold the property for Rs. 92.00 lacs.
Counsel for the respondent bank stated that review application is not maintainable. The applicant has not submitted any proposal with the bank. This Hon'ble Tribunal has passed a detailed order considering the argument of the parties and there is no defect in the final order.
I have considered the grounds taken in review application and order dt. 5.3.2020 and after giving my thoughtful consideration to the issues raised I am of the opinion that grounds and averments so taken do not fall within the ambit of review. It appears that review application has been filed by the applicant/defendants before this Tribunal as an appeal against judgment passed by this Tribunal and it is a settled proposition of law that a court cannot sit as appellate authority against its own judgment. The scope of review is limited and cannot be equated with appeal if Act provides specific remedy of appeal litigant cannot invoke provisions of review to challenge the findings given on merits. The applicant could avail other efficacious remedy of appeal instead of filing this review application to assail the judgment of this Tribunal on merits by filing this Review Application. The review application is accordingly merits dismissal with costs.
The review application is dismissed with cost accordingly.
Let the file be consigned to record.
(A. H. Khan)
Presiding Officer Addl. Charge, DRT Jabalpur