Mr. N.K. Mohta vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited on 24 February 2025

1. Mr. N.K. Mohta Aged about 69 years S/o. Ram Ratan Mohta

2. Mrs. Sarita Mohta Aged about 62 years W/o. Mr. N.K. Mohta

Both 1 & 2 re presently residing at; D-1201, Mantri Green, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560003

… APPLICANTS

AND

1. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., 15th Floor, Edelweiss House, Off C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Mumbai – 400098

2. Export Import Bank of India Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005

3. ECGC Ltd., ECGC Bhavan, CTS No.393393, 393/1 to 45, M.V. Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400069.

4. Vintage Foods & Industries Ltd., Now dissolved and rep. by NRRA Assignee, 2 IA/62/2025 in

Ms. Athulya Abhilas, Residing at 542, Prestige Casabella, Neeladri Road, Electronic City, Bengaluru - 560100

…RESPONDENTS

Counsels on record/appeared for: Applicant : Sri. Milind Dange Respondents : - …….

::ORDER ON RA::

This Review Application in short RA is filed by the applicant seeking review of the order passed in SA.No.100/2024 dated 08.11.2024.

2. The applicant contends that the order sought to be reviewed is to be reversed holding that the schedule property is an agriculture land and is excluded under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. In fact, the Review Application is filed along with the petition seeking to condone the delay of 31 days in filing the Review Application.

3. The issue as to whether this Tribunal can entertain an application for Review beyond limitation prescribed as per the statute is no more res integra as the same is settled, in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Vs MSTC Limited (2020) 13 SCC 618.

4. The Ld. Counsel for Review Application sought to distinguish the said decision in the light of the International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Ltd., Vs Official Liquidator (2017) 16 SCC 137 which is also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court while rendering the decision in Standard Chartered (Supra). According to Ld. Counsel for the Review application the 3 IA/62/2025 in decision only applies when delay is sought to condoned it an appeal filed under S.30 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act and not one for Review as sought for in the present case.

5. Having heard for the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and considered his submissions on the short point.

6. This Tribunal is not inclined to accept the preposition put forth by the applicant as the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in the decision is standard Chartered (Supra) had given the finding in reference to Rule 5(a) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Rules have held that “The peremptory language of Rule 5-A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that Rule 5-A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a review petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment, with effect from 4-11- 2016, to 30 days. From this two things are clear: one, whether in the original or un amended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as it contained in Section 30(3) of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation - otherwise they would not be maintainable”.

7. In view of the fact that only enabling provision allows this Tribunal to entertain Review Application is Under Section 22(2)(e) the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act R/w Rule 5-A of Debt Recovery 4 IA/62/2025 in

Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, this Tribunal is of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given a quietus to the issue as to whether this Tribunal can entertain the application for condonation of delay in filing a Review Application.

8. In view of the decision referred (supra), this Tribunal is of the view that the petition for condonation of delay cannot be entertained in an application seeking review as the only procedure empowers, this Tribunal to review its decision is under Rule 5-A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules.

9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, this IA.No.62/2025 stands dismissed. Consequently, RA.No.2/2025 also stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any, stands vacated. Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to cost. [Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24th Day of February 2025].

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER