Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
NANDUKA DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS vs ASREC INDIA LTD on 13 August 2026
<table border="1">
<tr>
<td data-bbox="118 101 245 211">13.08.2026</td>
<td data-bbox="245 101 308 211">Exh.</td>
<td data-bbox="308 101 808 211">
<p style="text-align: center;"><u>Before Presiding Officer Sreekala Suresh,</u><br/>
<u>DRT-1, Mumbai.</u><br/>
<u>Order in RA 1 OF 2021</u><br/>
<u>Nanduka Dyeing And Printing Mills Vs Asrec</u><br/>
<u>India Ltd</u></p>
</td>
<td data-bbox="808 101 954 211">Next date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td data-bbox="308 211 808 911">
<p>Mr. Shiv Kanodia appears in person for the Applicant.</p>
<p>Advocate Vinay Deshpande a/w Adv. Shobha Chavan for the Respondent no. 1.</p>
<p>Advocate Puneet Gogad for the Respondent no. 2.</p>
<p>1. The applicant is the appellant in the Appeal 6 of 2016. The appeal was dismissed on 16.07.2019 with the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). This Review application is filed for allegedly reviewing that order.</p>
<p>2. This review application is for review as is requested in Clause (I) in the reliefs portion, seek to review all orders passed interim and otherwise in Appeal 6 of 2016. The petition is opposed and resisted by the Respondent.</p>
<p>3. Perusal of the entire review application shows that, there are no clear averments of any omission or self evident factual or legal error or any procedural oversight in the</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
order passed in Appeal 6 of 2016. Nothing is substantiated to bring out any aspect of omission in the order in Appeal 6 of 2016 which ought to be corrected by way of review.
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.
1. 4. Perusal of the review application shows that allegation are raised about alleged evil operations in DRT-I, Mumbai, the Presiding Officer and Recovery Officer getting biased, alleged existence of corruption in DRT Mumbai, alleged foul play by Advocates.
2. 5. There need not be much deliberation on the fact that the aforesaid aspects now alleged by the applicant can hardly be a valid ground for review of the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal 6 of 2016.
3. 6. A review is strictly a reconsideration by the same court and should not be used as an appeal in disguise, to re argue the entire case. Here in this review petition, it is not even stated in the petition as to, what point is to be reconsidered, owing to an omission, if any which had occurred in deciding the matter.
4. 7. Perusal of Roznama in this review petition shows that, the order of the Tribunal on 06.03.2023 had directed the applicant to <table border="1"><tr><td></td><td></td><td><p>deposit Rs.50,000/- and to hear the application. It is seen that the applicant had not furnished the full set of review petition to the opposite side despite repeated posting given and so the Tribunal had passed an order on 06.03.2023 as stated above. The said amount is not paid by applicant, as is admitted by him. today before the Tribunal.</p></td><td></td></tr></table>
8. Now, without even pointing out any such omissions, the applicant is urging about corruption at the office of DRT, alleging underplay for the Presiding officer and general fraud being played by everyone.
9. The applicant in page 20 of the review application, unnumbered para raises a question as to, why DRT-I Mumbai is unable to see the gross misconduct, and is allowing growth of corruption.
10. As stated above, these are not matters to be considered in review of an order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal 6 of 2016. Without even alleging any omission or apparent error in the order, the present petition can be taken only as a disgruntled or dissatisfied attempt by the applicant whose <table border="1"><tr><td data-bbox="102 75 231 522">Sr. No.34</td><td data-bbox="231 75 291 522"></td><td data-bbox="291 75 794 522"><p>request was found against in the said Appeal filed as Appeal 16 of 2016.</p><p>11. Apart from a blanket request as is made in clause (l) in the relief portion of this petition that, all orders in Appeal 6 of 2016 are to be reviewed, no positive omission or error on the order in Appeal 6 of 2016 are pointed out by the applicant in the petition. So, as no valid or proper grounds for review are made out, RA 1 of 2021 stands dismissed.</p><p>12. File be closed and consigned to the Record Room.</p></td><td data-bbox="794 75 946 522"><p>Closed</p><p><br/>P.O.<br/>DRT-I</p></td></tr></table>