Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M/s. Yadav Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, vs BANK OF INDIA on 16 June 2023
[KAUR]
Presented on:
04.04.2018
Registered on:
18.08.2021
Decided on:
16.06.2023
Duration:
Y M D
5 2 12
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer)
REVIEW APPLICATION No.01/2021
1.
Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered
Office
at
8,
Satyam
Apartments, 4th Lane, Mukundnagar,
Pune 411 037.
2.
Mr.Prakash Waman Yadav,
Address: 8, Satyam Apartments, Near
Ranka Hospital, Mukundnagar, Pune
411 037.
3.
Mrs. Gayatri Niranjan Beri,
Address: 8, Satyam Apartments, Near
Ranka Hospital, Mukundnagar, Pune
411 037.
4.
Mr. Mandar Ashok Bankar
10, Lonkar Apartments, Mundhwa
Pune-411 036.
5.
Mr. Sachin Bhaskar Bhosale
7, Digambar Govind Apartments
Chinchwad, Pune.
...Applicants
Versus
Bank of India, a body corporate
constituted
under
the
Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer
[KAUR]
of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its
head office at Star House, C-5, ‘G’
Block,
Bandra-Kurla
Complex,
Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051 and a
branch office inter alia amongst other
places at 431/112, Shukrawar Peth,
Tilak Road, Pune 411 002, known as
Tilak Road Branch.
…Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Applicants
Mr. Prakash Yadav, applicant No.2 in
person for self and other applicants.
For Respondent
Mr. Satyan Jagtap - Advocate
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.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 16th June, 2023)
1. By the present Review Application, the applicants, original defendants/borrowers have claimed to review the Judgment and Order dated 29th January, 2018 passed in OA No.202/2010.
2. The respondent, original applicant bank, secured creditor by filing Reply (Exhibit-5) resisted the Application.
3. Heard both the parties. The applicant No.2 in person made arguments for himself and on behalf of other applicants and also filed Notes of Arguments (Exhibit-10). In the arguments both the parties reiterated facts
[KAUR]
mentioned in the Application and Reply.
4. Perused the record and impugned Judgment and Order. The main points for review of Judgment and Order passed in OA No.202/2010 are that this Tribunal failed to take note of breach of CGTMSE terms by respondent bank and the Tribunal failed to consider the Form of Guarantee dated 2nd September, 2008, ostensibly executed by applicants which is obtained against the norms specified by CGTMSE. However, I have scanned the Judgment and Order passed in OA No.202/2010 and found that all these grounds and challenges have been dealt with by predecessor of this Tribunal. There is no error or mistake apparent on the face of record i.e. in the Judgment and Order. Therefore, I find no merits in the present application and is liable for dismissal. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(A) Review Application No.1/2021 is hereby dismissed.
Pronounced in Open Court.
Place : Pune Date: 16.06.2023 Sd/- (Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune