UNION BANK OF INDIA on 11 July 2025

:ORDER:

1. This Review is filed by the respondent bank seeking review of the Order dated 04.10.2024 allowing the SA. The SA is filed with a prayer to set aside the sale notice dated 27.10.2023 and consequential sale 2 RA/4/2025

proceedings in pursuant to the impugned sale notice. This Tribunal by the order sought to be reviewed directed the possession to be restored and 25% of the bid amount deposited by the 2nd respondent to be forfeited as per Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule. The Order further gives the applicant bank liberty to initiate the fresh measures under the Act.

2. Since the only issue before this Tribunal is limited to the Review, this Tribunal is not adverting to the facts as stated in the SA and the objections raised by the respondents more than what is required for consideration of this Review application. It is stated that the review applicant had issued the demand notice on 15.06.2021 and subsequent possession notice on 17.09.2021. The said measures remained un- challenged till the sale notice dated 27.10.2023 was issued which was the subject matter of the SA wherein the Order sought to be reviewed is passed.

3. The review is filed on the premises that the SA stands allowed without taking note of the fact that the impugned sale notice is not first one and the statute mandates only 15 days’ notice. It is also pointed out the only contention taken in the SA is that the sale notice was not affixed and paper publication is not carried out in two newspapers. In the grounds to the Review Application, the applicant contends that, since the issue as to possession was not in lis before this Tribunal, this Tribunal is not justified in ordering restoration of possession to the applicant. It is also contended 3 RA/4/2025

in the Review Application, there was a stay in force in the SA and that prevented the auction purchaser from depositing the 75% and on the above premises, the applicant bank seeks to press for an Order reviewing the final order passed in SA.No.280/2023.

4. The respondents have filed their respective objections, however, since the matter pertains to review, this Tribunal is not adverting to the objections filed by the respondents. Heard the counsel for the applicant and the 2nd respondent and perused the available records.

5. The LD. counsel for the applicant contends that, this Tribunal has passed an erroneous Order without taking into consideration the fact that only 15 days’ notice is issued that and set aside the sale on the assumption that, on the finding that there is no 30 days clear notice.

6. The Ld. counsel for the 1st respondent strongly objected the entertainment of the Review Application, on the premises that there is no error on the face of the record and if at all the review applicant aggrieved their remedy lies before the Appellate Tribunal and not by way of review. The Ld. counsel for the 2nd respondent contends that the Order to the extent directing for forfeiture of 25% is wrong as the bank was legally prevented from receiving the amount due to the continuation of the Interim Order.

7. Having heard the counsels for the respective parties, this Tribunal is of the view that, if at all this Tribunal passed an Order without considering the fact that the impugned sale notice is not the first one and 4 RA/4/2025

set aside the same for the sole reason that there is no clear’ 30 days’ notice; it is for the review applicant to challenge the same in appeal and same cannot be rectified by entertaining a review, this Tribunal sitting in review cannot re-appreciate the evidence and took up a task which only the Appellate Tribunal can do.

8. The Ld. counsel for the 1st respondent places theses reliance on these decisions in W.P.No.3789/25017 PADMAVATHY VS AUTHORISED OFFICER DHANALAKSHMI BANK & ORS MADRAS HIGHT D.B. ORDER DATED 18.08.2017; CRD(PD)NO.3371/2012 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER INDIAN BANK VS TETRAHEDRON LTD & ORS MADRAS HIGHT D.B. ORDER DATED 20.12.2012; SBI VS ANIL SHUKLA (2020) IBC LAW DRAT ALLAHABAD BENCH; (2024) 6 SCC 641 AUTHORISED OFFICER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS SHANMUGAVELU AND W.P.(MD) NO.16929/2014 B.PRADISH KUMAR VS THE REGIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK & ANR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT D.B. ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 and contends that this Review needs to be rejected.

9. So far as the Order concerning the setting aside the sale and forfeiture of 25% amount is concerned and even assume the Order is erroneous and is passed without taking the relevant facts and evidence, the same can only be ground for appeal and cannot be rectified by filing a review. Sitting in a review jurisdiction, this Tribunal cannot re-visit the Order and came into a different conclusion than what has been entered into 5 RA/4/2025

at the time of passing the order. This Tribunal cannot usurp the powers of the appellate Tribunal while considering a Review.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haridas Das vs Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors (2006 (4) SCC 78) laid down the parameters within which the power of review can be exercised the Hon’ble Apex court in (Supra) placing reliance on Parsion Devi v. Sumiri Devi (1997(8) SCC 715)., wherein it is held that: Relying upon the judgments in the cases of Aribam's (supra) and Smt. Meera Bhanja (supra) it was observed as under: "Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise."

11. In view of the above this Tribunal is not inclined to review the Order as such as the finding in relation to legality of the notice and direction for forfeiture as the same is passed based on the reasoning given in the final order which cannot be re-visited in the guise of the review.

12. However, since only list which was pending before this Tribunal was regarding the legality of the sale notice and consequential conduct of the sale, direction to the respondent to reinstate possession to the applicant 6 RA/4/2025

should not have been passed. Since, the issue as to the possession was not before this Tribunal, even though the 1st respondent counsel submits that, as per S.17 (3)(b) this Tribunal is entitle to pass order to restore the possession of the secured asset to the borrower or such other aggrieved person who has made an application under S.17(1) as the case be, this Tribunal is of the view that such an order can only be passed if the legality of taking possession was the issue before this Tribunal in the S.17 application, when the sale notice and the consequential sale alone is under challenge, this Tribunal is no way empowered to go into the legality of the question as to the possession and hence it is tantamount to an apparent error in passing an order restoring possession to the applicant.

13. In view of the above, the Review Application No.4/2025 is allowed only to the extent of setting aside the direction to restoring the possession to the mortgager in the Order sought to be reviewed. All pending IAs stand closed. The parties to bear their respective costs. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned. [Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11th Day of July 2025].

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER