M/s Amar Technocraft vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED on 19 May 2025

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ] (Diary RA No.697/2024) Page 1 of 6

19.05.2025

Sr. No.22 Diary RA No.697/2024

Classifi

cation

No. of

Exh.

Interlocutory Application No.980/2024

IN

Diary RA No.697/2024

M/s. Amar Technocraft

..Applicant

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

..Respondent

Mr. Anil P. Kale – Advocate for the applicant Mr. Umesh N. Shete - Advocate for the respondent bank.

The matter is taken through Hybrid.

1. This order of mine disposes of an application for Review bearing Diary RA No.697/2024 moved by the applicants /borrowers under Rule 5-A of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (For short : Rules 1993) in respect of Order dated 15.03.2021 passed by this Tribunal in Securitisation Application No.36/2019.

2. The brief averments of the above referred application are that this Tribunal passed order dated 15.03.2021 in Securitisation Application

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ] (Diary RA No.697/2024) Page 2 of 6

No.36/2019 with the directions to the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs.18,81,590.16Ps. (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Eighty-One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety and Paise Sixteen only) calculating rate of interest @8.5%. The bank has shown deposit of Rs.58 Lacs (Rupees Fifty-Eight Lacs only) in account as on 30.09.2020 whereas the applicants deposited Rs.25 Lacs (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs only) on 13.05.2019 and Rs.33 Lacs (Rupees Thirty- Three Lacs only) on 17.01.2020 with this Tribunal.

3. It is further alleged that this Tribunal directed the bank vide order dated 15.09.2020 to file an interest statement on reducing balance duly taking into account Rs.58 Lacs (Rupees Fifty-Eight Lacs only)

deposited in the DRT, Aurangabad. Therefore, the calculation of the amount has been made by the bank on wrong facts and this Tribunal has passed the order dated 15.03.2021 on the basis of the calculation provided by the bank and prayed for review the order dated 15.03.2021.

4. The respondent bank filed reply affidavit alleging therein that this Review Application is barred by

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ] (Diary RA No.697/2024) Page 3 of 6

limitation as the order was passed on 15.03.2021

and this Review Petition was filed on 26.06.2024.

The applicants having knowledge of order dated 15.03.2021 from the date of passing as the same was passed in their presence. The order dated 15.03.2021 was passed by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the interest calculations placed on record by the respondents which would have been due on 13(2) notice at different rates, the calculation was Rs.16,32,250.86Ps. (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Thirty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty

and

Paisa

Eighty-Six

only)

@7.5%

and

Rs.24.02,356.63 Ps. (Rupees Twenty-Four Lacs Two Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Six and Paisa Sixty-Three only) @10.5%. Thereafter at its sole discretion, this Tribunal calculated the interest @8.5% which comes out to Rs.18,81,590.16Ps.

(Rupees Eighteen Lacs Eighty-One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety and Paisa Sixteen only) and directed the applicants to deposit the same by 31.03.2021 and if the same was not deposited, then extension of three months was given for making payment. Hence, the calculations were already

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ] (Diary RA No.697/2024) Page 4 of 6

dealt with by the Tribunal and thereafter a specific order was passed and there is no ground for reviewing the order dated 15.03.2021 and prayed for dismissal of the Review Application as well as Interlocutory Application No.980/2024 moved for condonation of delay.

5. Both the sides have been heard.

6. It may be noted here that for condonation of delay, a separate Interlocutory Application No.980/2024

has been filed by the applicants. The respondent bank in reply has contested this delay condonation Application.

7. The applicants have sought review of order dated 15.03.2021 passed by my learned predecessor in Securitisation Application No.36/2019.

After

taking into consideration the calculation provided by the bank at two different rates of interest being @7.5% and @10.5% in Para No.9 of this order, it was specifically ordered that the borrower shall pay the publication charges Rs.1,61,729/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Nine only) and interest @8.5% which

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ] (Diary RA No.697/2024) Page 5 of 6

comes out to Rs.18,81,590.16Ps. (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Eighty-One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety and Paisa Sixteen only) shall be deposited by 31.03.2021. If same is not deposited, then extension of three months’ was given with interest to be paid till the time of making that payment. Therefore, the Tribunal has passed an order considering all the aspects on record and hence, there is no apparent illegality on the face of record. If the applicants were aggrieved with this order, they could have filed appeal against this order.

8. There is no provision of review under SARFAESI

Act, 2002. No doubt, there is provision of review under Rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. If this application of the applicants is appreciated in the light of this Rule, this application is barred by limitation. As per Rule 5-A of Rules 1993, no application for review shall be made after expiry of period of 30 days from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application. The Tribunal passed the order on 15.03.2021 whereas the Review

ORDER SHEET

[SBJ] (Diary RA No.697/2024) Page 6 of 6

Application was filed on 26.06.2024 after delay of more than three years and this inordinate delay in filing this Review Application has not been justified by sufficient grounds on record.

Therefore, the present Review Application filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as on limitation. Hence, I pass the following order.

9. In view of the submissions and arguments of both sides, I pass the following order: