IDFC FIRST BANK LTD vs BASAVARAJA KUCHHAPPA KORACHAR on 30 April 2026

Presiding Officer

**24.04.2026**

**24.04.2026**

RA 9/2025 is dismissed, vide separate order. No costs.

Presiding Officer

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI

PRESIDING OFFICER

^30th

Dated the ~~24th~~ day of April, 2026

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2025

IN

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2025

Between

IDFC First Bank Limited,

Registered office at KRN Towers,

7^th Floor, No.1, Hamington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600031, Branch among other places at Anand Bhavan, Opp. Apollo Pharmacy, Hospet Road, Municipal Town, Sirsi, Karnataka-581401 and Having asset office at C-1, R. P's Pride, 1^st Floor, 20^th Main Road, KHB 5^th Block, Opp. To Sri Ganesh Temple, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095, Represented by its Authorized Officer.

...Petitioner/Defendant

And

1. Basavaraja Kuchhappa Korachar,

S/o Kuchhappa Korachar,

Karnataka - 581358.

2. Saroja Basavaraja Korachar,

W/o Basavaraj Kuchhappa Korachar,

Karnataka - 581358.

..... Respondents/Applicants

This Review Application having been heard on 10.02.2026 in the presence of Advocates M/s V Suresh and M Anitha for the petitioner/defendant, and Advocate Shri Hegde Prakash R for the respondents/applicants, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following: - RA No.9/2025 in SA No.7/20252**ORDER**

Review Application No.9/2025 was filed on 09.07.2025 under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules' - praying to restore the application filed under S.17(1) of the Act,2002 by allowing the review petition.

2. The present review application is filed by the review petitioner/defendant bank seeking review of the order passed in SA No.7/2025. The review petitioner/defendant bank contends that this Tribunal, while allowing the SA has proceeded on the premise that the review petitioner/defendant bank failed to register the security interest with CERSAI. It is submitted that in fact, the registration was duly effected within the prescribed time, however due to inadvertence, the certificate of registration could not be produced before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the SA. The review petitioner/defendant bank has now placed on record the CERSAI registration certificate and seeks review of the order dated 30.06.2025 on that ground.

3. Per contra, the respondents/applicants in the SA opposes the Review Application contending that a specific plea regarding non-registration of CERSAI was taken in the SA and despite opportunity, the bank failed to produce any material to substantiate compliance. It is contended that the present attempt amounts to filing up lacunae, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.

4. I have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the review petitioner/defendant is entitled to the relief prayed for?

5. The scope of review is limited and does not extend to rehearing of the matter or permitting a party to produce documents which were within its knowledge and possession but not produced at the relevant time. A review can be entertained only on discovery of new and important matter, which, despite due diligence, was not within the RA No.9/2025 in SA No.7/20253

knowledge of the party or could not be produced, or on account of an error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the issue of CERSAI registration was specifically raised by the applicants in the SA. The review petitioner/defendant bank had full opportunity to place on record the necessary documents to establish compliance. The plea of inadvertence or omission cannot be accepted as a ground for review. The document now sought to be produced namely the CERSAI registration certificate was admittedly in existence at the relevant time and was within the knowledge and possession of the bank. The failure to produce the same amounts to negligence and permitting its production at the review stage would amount to allowing the bank to fill up the lacunae in its case, which is not permissible in law. No error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated by the review petitioner/defendant bank warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction

6. In view of the above, the review application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Review Application No.9/2025 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

[Dictated to my PA, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 20^th day of April, 2026]

30th

[ IMTIAZ ALI ]

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1,

KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI

PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the ^30th~~24th~~ day of April, 2026

**REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2025**

**IN**

**SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2025**

Between

IDFC First Bank Limited,

Registered office at KRN Towers,

7^th Floor, No.1, Hamington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600031, Branch among other places at Anand Bhavan, Opp. Apollo Pharmacy, Hospet Road, Municipal Town, Sirsi, Karnataka-581401 and Having asset office at C-1, R. P's Pride, 1^st Floor, 20^th Main Road, KHB 5^th Block, Opp. To Sri Ganesh Temple, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095, Represented by its Authorized Officer. .... Petitioner

And

Basavaraja Kuchhappa Korachar,

S/o Kuchhappa Korachar,

Karnataka - 581358,

And Another. .... Respondents