SRI MANDIRA vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 17 September 2026

ORDER

Review Application No.8/2025 was filed on 30.04.2025 under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules' - r/w S.22(2)(e), S.19(25) of the RDB Act,1993- praying to review and modify the final order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA 2142/2016.

2. The case set out by the review petitioners in the RA No.8/2025 in brief is as follows:- The petitioners submit that there is an error apparent on the face of record in respect of the charging the interest @11% p.a. or with monthly rest or quarterly rests. Further, the defendant bank when they sold the schedule 'B' property, sale proceeds of which though appropriated towards the outstanding amount but in view of

quashing/setting aside the sale conducted in respect of two properties and as sum these facts are not adjudicated in the application filed u/s 19 of the Act, then there is a miscarriage of justice which measures results in abuse of process of law, miscarriage of justice and leads to multiple litigation. Hence this application.

3. The 1^st respondent/applicant bank filed statement of objection contending as follows: - The review application is not maintainable. The petitioners have not made out any ground for review. The 1^st respondent/applicant is a bank dealing with statutory rights which are vested with the public money. On the above contentions, the 1^st respondent/applicant prayed for dismissal of the review application.

4. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the review petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for?

5. The Point:- The present Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the final order passed in the Original Application. The review petitioner has contended that there is an error apparent on the face of record in as much as the operative portion of the order awards interest at the rate of 11% per annum but does not specify whether such interest is to be calculated with monthly rests or quarterly rests.

6. It is further contended that the bank had sold the schedule 'B' property and appropriated the sale proceeds towards the outstanding dues. According to the review petitioner, the sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act in respect of two secured properties had already been set aside and unless the effect of the said order on the appropriation of the sale proceeds is adjudicated in the Original Application, it would result in miscarriage of justice and multiplicity of proceedings. It is submitted that the order setting aside the SARFAESI sale was passed prior to the order in the Original Application. However, it is also not in dispute that the said order has been challenged before the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai and the appeal is pending consideration.

7. The review petitioners have also placed reliance upon the judgments reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047 and 1964 SCR (5) 174 in support of the contention that the judgment requires review. Further, the review petitioners have sought to raise a counterclaim in the present Review Petition claiming compensation of 17 crores and odd.

8. I have considered the pleadings, the submissions made by the parties, the records of the case and the judgments relied upon.

9. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review can be entertained only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or on any other ground recognized in law. It is well settled that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked to reargue the matter or seek a rehearing on the merits.

10. A perusal of the final order clearly reveals that the Tribunal has categorically held that the applicant bank is entitled to recover the decretal amount together with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the specified date till the realization. The operative portion of the final order does not direct payment of interest with either monthly rests or quarterly rests. The award of simple interest at 11% per annum is explicit and unambiguous. Therefore, no error apparent on the face of the record exists on this aspect warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction.

11. With regard to the contention relating to the sale of schedule 'B' property and appropriation of the sale proceeds, it is evident that although the order setting aside the SARFAESI sale had been passed prior to the final order in the Original Application, the said order has admittedly been challenged before the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai and the appeal is still pending. Consequently, the said order has not attained finality. In any event, the contention advanced by the review petitioners seek a fresh adjudication on the effect of the SARFAESI proceedings and the appropriation of the sale proceeds. Such a plea does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record but seeks reconsideration of the merits of the controversy, which is impermissible in review

proceedings. The rights and liabilities of the parties flowing from the SARFAESI proceedings shall abide by the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble DRAT and may be worked out in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

12. The judgments relied upon by the review petitioner reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047 and 1964 SCR (5) 174 have been duly considered. The principle laid down therein reiterate that the power of review is confined to correction an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be exercised as if it were an appellate jurisdiction. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, this Tribunal finds that none of the grounds urged by the review petitioners disclose any patent or self-evident error warranting review. The said decisions, therefore, do not advance the case of the review petitioners.

13. The counter claim seeking compensation of ₹17 crore and odd is also wholly misconceived and not maintainable in a review petition. A review proceeding cannot be converted into an independent proceeding for claiming fresh substantive reliefs which neither formed part of the Original Application nor were adjudicated therein. Such a claim is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction and is accordingly rejected.

14. For all the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal finds that the review petitioner has failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review of the final order passed in the Original Application.

15. In the result, the review petition No.8 of 2025 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The counterclaim vide D.No.296 of 2026 raised therein is also rejected as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.

*[Dictated to my LR, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 17^th day of September, 2026]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI]

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 17^th day of September, 2026

**REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2025** **IN** **ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2142 OF 2016**

Between

M/s Sri Mandira, 91, 100 Feet Road, 9^th Main, BTM Layout, 1^st Stage, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560029, Represented by its Partner Alageshan N Reddy and two others.

..... Review petitioners

And

State Bank of India, Having its Head Office at Mumbai, And Branch among other places including Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, at 22, 1^st Floor, J C Road, Bangalore- 560002, Represented by its Chief Manager, And three others.

..... Respondents

**ORDER**

4. 17.09.26