SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD vs RUDY JJ SEQUEIRA on 30 April 2026

**ORDER**

Review Application No.7/2025 was filed on 16.06.2026, in fact, under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules' - praying to review and set aside the final order dated 10.06.2025 passed by this Tribunal in SA 97/2025.

2. The case set out by the Review Petition in the memorandum accompanying RA 7 of 2025 in brief is as follows – The Respondent and one Mrs. Charlotte Sequeira herein referred to as borrowers had approached the Review Petitioner for loan. Considering the request of the borrowers, the Review Petitioner has granted Home Loan of Rs.34.28 lacs on 06.06.2013. Since the borrowers have committed default, the loan account was classified as NPA and demand notice as well as possession notice were issued. Further the possession notice was published in two newspapers and the petitioner/defendant obtained an order from Magistrate on 21.07.2025. The petitioner/defendant issued a notice to the borrowers asking them to vacate the secured asset within 7 days from the date of notice. Aggrieved by the notice, the borrower/applicant filed an appeal being SA 97/2025. The review petitioner filed written objection in the SA.

3. After having heard the arguments of both sides, this Tribunal was pleased to pass final order on 10.06.2025, partly allowing the appeal uploading the measures initiated by the review petitioner/applicant.

4. However, in para 20 and 21 of the said final order, it was observed that the security interest has not been registered in respect of Flat No. 903 in the Central Registry and thus, the measures initiated under the provisions of the Act are invalid as against that Flat bearing No. 903. Now, it is stated by the petitioner/defendant that the charge has been duly registered in the Central Registry for the flats bearing Nos.903 and 904. However, due to sheer lost of sight, the review petitioner/defendant has produced the CERSAI registration in respect of Flat No. 904 in the SA No. 97/2025. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed in SA No.97/2025 be reviewed by setting aside the same.

5. The respondent applicant filed statement of objections contending as follows:- The petitioner filed the captioned review petitioner against the Order dated 10.06.2025 passed by this Tribunal in Securitization Application No.97 of 2024. Against the said Order, the Petitioner has remedy to file appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which states that any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the Order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Instead of filing appeal against the said Order, the petitioner, trying to bypass the SARFAESI Act, by filing Review Petition under Section 5-A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (procedure) Rules, 1993 which is not maintainable either in law or in fact, as this Tribunal has power to review of the Order passed by this Tribunal, in case of any mistake of error apparent on the face of the record produced before this Tribunal. Here, this Tribunal passed order based on the material evidence produced by the petitioner itself. Hence, the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. The Petitioner has no jurisdiction to file the petition against the Order dated 10.06.2025 passed in SA No.97/2024, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

6. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the review petitioner/defendant is entitled to the relief prayer for?

7. The review petition is filed by the petitioner bank seeking review of the order passed by this Tribunal in SA No.97/2024, whereby the Securitisation Application was partly allowed and the measures taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act in respect of Flat No.903 were declared invalid. The SA was filed challenging the measures taken by the bank under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Upon consideration of the pleadings and documents, this Tribunal, by order dated 10.06.2025 partly allowed the SA on the ground that the Bank failed to establish creation of valid security interest over Flat

No.903. It was specifically observed that Annexure B-22 produced by the Bank along with its objection disclosed creation of security interest in respect of Flat No.904 and not Flat No. 903. On the basis, the action of the Bank against Flat No. 903 was unsustainable. The petitioner bank has now filed the present Review Petition contending that there exists an error apparent on the face of the record. Along with the Review petition, the Bank has produced a document/report purportedly evidencing registration of security interest in respect of Flat No. 903. It is contended that the said document establishes that the findings rendered by this Tribunal requires reconsideration.

8. The scope of review jurisdiction is well settled. A review is maintainable only in cases where:-

- (i) There is an error apparent on the face of the record, or

- (ii) There is discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed.

9. In the present case, the entire basis of the order passed in the SA was the material placed on record by the Bank itself, particularly Annexure B-22, which reflected creation of security interest over Flat No. 904. The document now sought to be relied upon by the Bank was not produced at the time of adjudication of the SA. Thus, the Bank has failed to demonstrate that the said document was not within its knowledge as it could not have been produced despite due diligence. On the contrary, the document pertains to the Bank's own records relating to creation of security interest, and ought to have been produced at appropriate stage.

10. Hence, the present review petition is, in effect, an attempt by the Bank to introduce fresh evidence, and seek re-appreciation of the matter already adjudicated. Such an exercise is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. Review cannot be invoked to fill up omissions or to rectify defects in the case originally presented. No error on the face of the record has been demonstrated by the petitioner bank. If the Bank is aggrieved by the finding's rendered by this Tribunal, the appropriate remedy available is to prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

11. This Tribunal is of considered view that the present application is a clear attempt to fill up lacunae in the case already adjudicated. The Bank seeks to re-open and re-argue the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated. Permitting such review would defeat the finality of judicial orders and encourage negligent conduct in presentation of cases. The conduct of the petitioner bank in producing inconsistent records at different stages and attempting to re-open concluded findings deserves to be deprecated.

12. In view of the foregoing, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the review application is devoid of merits and not maintainable. Accordingly, the Review application is dismissed.

13. Considering the conduct of the petitioner Bank and the unwanted invocation of review jurisdiction, this Tribunal is of the view that imposition of deterrent costs is warranted. Hence, the petitioner bank shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Urban City Civil Court, Complex, Bengaluru-560009 within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. In default, the matter may be listed for appropriate directions, including recovery in accordance with law.

*[Dictated to my PA, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 30^th day of April, 2026]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ]

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 30^th day of April, 2026

**REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2025**

**IN**

**SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2025**

Between

The Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Limited, Regional Office, Bangalore Door No. 74, 2^nd floor, Ward No 111 Brigade Road, Near St Joseph's College BANGALORE-560 025. Represented by its Authorized Officer Mr. Darshan S Bhavikatti .....Petitioner/Defendant

And

Mr. Rudy JJ Sequeira, Son of Austen Sequeira, Flat No. 903-904, A block, Daadys Elixir Apartments, Ananthnagar Furit Market, Huskur Gate, Kammasandra, BANGALORE-560 0100. ..... Respondent/Applicant

**ORDER**

30.04.26