MR NARASIMHAMURTHY T vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 8 June 2026

ORDER

Review Application No.1/2026 was filed on 26.12.2025 under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules' - r/w S.17(7) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction and Financial Institutions Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Act' - praying to review the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by this Tribunal in IA 2367 of 2024 in USA Dy. No.2678 /2024.

2. The present Review Application has been filed by the petitioners/applicants seeking review of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in the condonation application, whereby the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected. The petitioners/applicants have raised multiple grounds assailing the said order.

3. Firstly, it is contended that certain unconnected matters were discussed in paragraphs 25 to 27 of the impugned order. However, on perusal of the record, it is evident that the dismissal of the condonation application was primarily based on the inordinate delay of 244 days and failure to show sufficient cause despite knowledge of the sale notice. Even if certain observations are assumed to be not directly connected, the same do not affect the core reasoning of the order.

4. The petitioners/applicants have further contended that this Tribunal failed to rely upon recent judgments and did not properly consider the provisions of the Limitation Act. In this regard, it is settled law that non-reference of certain judgments or a different interpretation of law cannot be a ground for review unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and are maintainable only on limited grounds.

5. It is also contended that this Tribunal ignored relevant documents and considered irrelevant materials and thereby contradicted findings in another SA. Such contentions relate to appreciation of evidence, which falls outside the scope of review. In State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta, it has been held that review cannot be sought for re-appreciation of evidence.

6. The applicant has relied upon proceedings in SA No.232/2024 and contended that since delay was condoned therein, similar treatment ought to have been given. This contention is untenable as each proceedings is to be decided on its own facts. Moreover, even in the said SA, it was observed that the petitioners/applicants had knowledge of the sale notice but failed to challenge it within time.

7. The plea of continuous cause of action is also misconceived. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that limitation cannot be defeated by invoking the theory of continuing cause of action where the cause is complete.

8. The applicant further alleged non-compliance of the SARFAESI provisions and fraud on the ground that service of sale notice was not established. These are issues on merits requiring evidence and cannot be adjudicated in review. In Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, it has been held that review is not maintainable for rehearing of the matter on merits.

9. Another contention is regarding lack of power to condone delay. Even assuming such observation to be erroneous, the dismissal is independently supported by the finding that no sufficient cause was shown. In Basaworaj vs. Special Land

Acquisition Officer, it has been held that delay cannot be condoned in absence of sufficient cause and courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds.

10. The petitioners/applicants have also alleged that they were not heard. However, records reveal that the petitioners/applicants sought adjournments on several occasions and ultimately remained absent when the matter was heard. Hence, no violation of natural justice is made out. In Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, it was held that a party who does not avail opportunity cannot later complain of denial of hearing.

11. It is well settled that review jurisdiction is extremely limited and can be exercised only in cases of error apparent on the face of the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma has held that review is not ^an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case.

12. In the present case, the petitioners/applicants have failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any ground warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The grounds urged are essentially an attempt to reagitiate the matter on merits.

13. Accordingly, the Review Application 1 of 2026 is dismissed. No costs.

[Dictated to my P.A. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 8^th day of June, 2026]

[ IMTIAZ ALI ]

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 8^th day of June, 2026

Review Application No. 1 of 2026

in

Interlocutory Application No.2367 off 2024

in

Unregistered Securitisation Application Dy.No. 2678 of 2024

Between

Narasimhamurthy T,

Bangalore-560079, And another. .... Review petitioners/Applicants

And

Union Bank of India, Annapoorneshwari Nagar, No.2, Sri Kamala, 60 Feet Road, 15^th Cross, Health Layout, Nagarbhavi, 2^nd Stage, Bengaluru-560091, Represented by its Authorised Officer/Manager and another.... ..Respondents/defendants

**ORDER**

8.6.26.