IDBI BANK LTD vs SEEMA BANU on 31 July 2026

MA No.06/2026

31.07.2026

The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant seeking recall of the order dated 23.04.2026 passed in S.A.No.165/2026.

The record discloses that S.A.No.165/2026 was disposed of as infructuous on 23.04.2026 on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that although the sale notice had been challenged, the proposed auction could not be conducted for want of bidders. Proceeding on the said submission, this Tribunal held that no cause of action survived and disposed of the Securitisation Application as having become infructuous.

The applicant has filed the present application contending that the aforesaid submission was factually incorrect. According to the applicant, the auction had in fact been conducted, an auction purchaser had emerged successful, and substantial sale consideration had already been deposited with the respondent bank. It is submitted that had the true facts been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Securitisation Application would not have been disposed of as infructuous.

Persuant to notice, the respondent bank has filed its objection. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent bank fairly admitted that the submission made on behalf of the bank at the time of disposal of S.A.No.165/2026 was erroneous. It is also admitted that the auction sale had indeed taken place and that the successful auction purchaser had deposited a substantial portion of the sale consideration with the bank. Thus, the factual basis on which the order dated 23.04.2026 came to be passed admittedly did not exist.

Judicial order are founded on the correctness of facts placed before the Court. Where an order had been passed on the basis of an incorrect factual submission, and the party itself subsequently admits the error, the Tribunal would be failing in its duty if such an order is permitted to stand. The Tribunal possesses the inherent power to recall an order passed under a mistaken factual premise in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

MA No.06/2026

..Contd..

Since the respondent bank itself admitted that the earlier submission was incorrect and that the auction proceedings in fact been conducted, the very foundation for disposing of the Securitisation Application as infructuous stands demolished. Consequently, the order dated 23.04.2026 cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the MA No.6/2026 is allowed. The order dated 23.04.2026 passed in SA No.165/2026 is restored to its original file for adjudication on merits.

The Registry is directed to list S.A. No.165/2026 for hearing on 9.10.2026. The respondent bank shall produce complete auction records, including the sale proceedings, bid sheet, proof of deposit of the sale consideration by the auction purchaser, sale confirmation, and all other relevant documents on the next date of hearing Before parting, this Tribunal observes that utmost care is expected from parties and their counsel while making factual submissions before a judicial forum. The respondent bank has fairly acknowledged that an incorrect statement was made on the earlier occasion. Such errors have the potential to result in erroneous judicial order and unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The bank is, therefore, expected to ensure greater diligence and accuracy in future while placing facts before this Tribunal.

No order as to costs.

Presiding Officer