M/S SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR PUNEET SEHGAL S/O LATE SH. BADRINATH SEHGAL vs Uttarakhand Garmin bank on 11 August 2026

**J U D G M E N T**

**(Date of Decision: 11.08.2026)**

1. 1. The applicants have filed this instant review application on 30.10.2023 with the prayer to allow the present review application and dismiss the O.A. No. 378 of 2020.

2. 2. The Facts of the case are as under:

1. A. That this Tribunal passed the final judgment and order on 21.08.2023 but the applicants/defendants in the O.A. were not aware, whether the copy of the order has been prepared or not by the office of this Tribunal and when the applicants/defendants did not get a copy of the Judgment/order dated 21.08.2023 then on 20.09.2023 the applicants/defendants applied for the certified copy of the order dated 21.08.2023 whereby the date fixed for issue of the copy by the office of this Tribunal was 03.10.2023 and on the same date i.e. on 03.10.2023 itself, the copy of the judgment and order dated 21.08.2023 was received by the counsel of the applicants/defendants and thereafter since 03.10.2023 the Defendant no.2 in the O.A. Sh. Puneet Sehgal S/o late Sh. Badrinath Sehgal proprietor of the Borrower Firm/defendant no.1 in the O.A., fell ill and suffered with the viral fever and became very weak hence he could not come to sign and sworn the affidavit of the Review petition hence the present Review Petition/application is being filed today i.e. on 31.10.2023 with a delay of 41 days. The medical certificate of the Defendant no.2 is at Annexure no.1.

2. B. That the present review petitioners did not make any deliberate delay in filing the present review petition hence it is expedient in the interest of justice that the delay of 41 days in filing the Review Petition may kindly be condoned otherwise the review petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by any

**M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors. Vs. Uttarakhnd Gramin Bank**

means because the valuable rights of Defendants no.1 & 2 are involved in the present case hence the review petitioners may be given the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and present review petition be treated as filed well within time.

- C. That M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises is a firm and Sh. Puneet Sehgal S/o late Sh. Badrinath Sehgal is its proprietor. That in the judgment dated 21.08.2023 in para 8 & 16 this Tribunal has mentioned regarding the averments made by both the parties (applicants of the O.A. and the defendants to the O.A.) regarding the classification of the c/c limit account of the Borrower Firm as NPA but has not at all given any finding on this issue. It is pertinent to mention here that the controversy "whether the c/c limit account of the Borrower Firm has been rightly classified as NPA and in accordance with the Guidelines and Directives of the RBI", was involved in the above noted O.A., which goes to the root of the case because if the account of the Borrower Firm has been wrongly classified as NPA in violation of the Guidelines and Directives of the RBI, then no cause of action arises to file the present O.A. by the creditor Bank against the Borrower Firm and if filed then it will be liable to be dismissed outright on this sole ground.

- D. That an account is always classified as NPA by the Bank and the Financial Institution when it becomes sub-standard, doubtful or loss which is not there in the present case. That the Guidelines and Directives of RBI dated 01.07.2013 regarding classifying an account as NPA which are still in operation reads as under:

*Definitions:*

**2.1 Non-Performing Assets**

*2.1.1. An asset, including a leased asset, becomes non-performing when it ceases to generate income for the Bank.*

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN

2.1.2 A non-performing asset (NPA) is a loan or an advance where: (i) Interest and/or installment of principal remain overdue for a period of more than 90 days in respect of a term loan, (ii) the account remains out of order as indicated at Paragraph 2.2 below, in respect of an Overdraft/ Cash Credit (OD/CC)

(iii) The bill remains overdue for a period of more than 90 days in the case of bills purchased and discounted.

3. The installment of principal or interest thereon remains overdue for two crop seasons for short duration crops.

4. The installment of principal or interest thereon remains overdue for one crop season for long duration crops.

2.1.4 Banks should classify an account as NPA only if the interest charged during any quarter is not serviced fully within 90 days from the end of the quarter.

2.2 out of order status:

An account should be treated as out of order if the outstanding balance remains continuously in excess of the sanctioned limit/ drawing power. In cases where the outstanding balance in the principal operating account is less than the sanctioned limit/ drawing power but there are no credits continuously for 90 days as on the date of balance sheet or credits are not enough to cover the interest debited during the same period, these accounts should be treated as out of order.

2.2 Overdue:

Any amount due to the Bank under any credit facility is overdue if it is not paid on the due date fixed by the Bank.

E. A perusal of the above mentioned Guidelines goes to show that if the interest due and charged during any quarter is not serviced fully within 90 days from the end of the quarter then an account can be classified as NPA but in the present case as far as the c/c limit account of the Borrower Firm is concerned the interest of the month May 2019 & June 2019 was not fully serviced though there was continuous transaction in the account but that amount was not sufficient to completely service the interest of the month May & June 2019 hence the interest of even one quarter was not due to be paid by the defendant no. 1 Firm/ Borrower Firm even then the Bank classified the c/c limit account of the

Borrower Firm as NPA 29.07.2019 which is absolutely in violation of the Guidelines and Directives of RBI Moreover the account of the Borrower Firm/ defendant no. 1 cannot be said as out of order also because there was continuous transaction in the account of Borrower Firm/ defendant no. 1 within 90 days uptill the date of NPA i.e. 29.07.2019.

F. That the c/c limit account of the Borrower Firm was under limit on the date of NPA i.e. below Rs.2.00Crores. Hence it is very much clear from the Statement of Account and is absolutely apparent on the face of it that the Applicant Bank has illegally and in violation of the Guidelines and Directives of RBI has classified the account of the Borrower Firm as NPA on 29.07.2019. Moreover as per para 4.2.4 of the above guidelines clearly says that "the classification of an asset as NPA should be based on the record of recovery. Bank should not classify an advance account as NPA merely due to the existence of some deficiencies which are temporary in nature such as non-availability of adequate drawing power based on the latest available stock statement, balance outstanding exceeding the limit temporarily, non-submission of stock statements and non-renewal of the limit on the due date, etc." But in the present matter these type of deficiencies are also not there hence the account of the Borrower Firm has been classified as NPA on 29.07.2019 in an illegal and biased manner by the officials of the Bank and by doing so the Borrower Firm is deprived from further transaction in the c/c limit account and as consequence thereof suffered with a heavy economical loss.

G. That the applicant/Defendants in O.A. in para no.26 of the O.A. has mentioned that "the conduct of the account of the defendant became unsatisfactory due to the commission of irregularities in the c/c limit account" and has classified the account of the Borrower Firm as NPA and in the written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant no.1 & 2 of the O.A. in para 31, 32 & 33 it has been specifically denied that there was no any irregularity in the c/c limit account and it has been further mentioned in the written statement in para no. 31 that "the answering defendants have been regularly paying the interest due and despite of the fact that the answering defendants were paying interest regularly, the said account was turned as NPA without any default on their behalf".

H. That this Tribunal has also mentioned in para 16 of the judgment and order dated 21.08.2023 regarding issuance of No Objection Certificate in relation to permission for applying loan from other Bank but has not considered this aspect of the case that when the Borrower Firm sought extension of the c/c limit facility from Rs.2.00Crores to Rs.3.00Crores and the creditor Bank refused to give extension, then the Borrower Firm through its proprietor approached some other Bank, who was ready to take over the c/c limit account from the creditor Bank and for that purpose the so called No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued by the creditor Bank on 26.07.2019 and just after 2 days with a malafide intension and in a biased manner classified the account of the Borrower Firm as NPA on 29.07.2019 absolutely in an illegal manner and has deprived the applicants herein/Borrower Firm from extension of the c/c limit facility from Rs.2.00Crores to Rs.3.00Crores, neither from the creditor bank nor from any other Bank. The so called NOC dated 26.07.2019 issued by the creditor Bank has been filed by the Borrower Firm and is on record of the above noted O.A. with the affidavit dated 25.07.2023 filed by the defendant no. 1 & 2 vide diary no. 7867 in the above noted O.A.

I. That on the basis of the above mentioned facts and law it is expedient in the interest of justice that the present Review application/petition filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 & 2 in the above noted O.A. be allowed and O.A. No. 378 of 2020 be dismissed.

1. 3. The Respondent Bank has filed objection on delay condonation by diary No.2455 dated 10.04.2024. It is stated that on the point of condonation of delay that the contents of the Delay condonation Application are wrong and denied. The medical certificate annexed seems to be fictitious one. The applicants have always been informed about the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. action and recovery proceedings since beginning and hence, the present application is liable to be quashed at the very threshold stage on the ground of the limitation.

2. 4. The reply to the review application filed through diary No.2456 dated 10.04.2024 and stated that the applicant's grievance about the classification of the account NPA cannot be considered under the present Review Application, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 has provided detailed procedure about proper forum and method of raising such grievance, the present grievance cannot be considered by way of review application filed in disguise of appeal. Moreover, on the point of classification of account as NPA, the borrower failed to file any representation to demand notice ' issued under section 13(2) of the S.A.R.A.F.A.E.S.I. Act, and thus the same cannot be raised now. The Applicants have not filed the copy of objections filed in the above O.A. 378 of 2019 and in absence of the objections the Applicant cannot challenge the same as the same being beyond pleadings. Moreover the Applicant cannot be permitted to substitute the purpose of Appeal by Review Application in a deceitful manner. The present review application has been filed with delay on incorrect facts.

3. 5. Again stated that the borrower has also concealed material information about the purpose of loan and the failure of said purpose for which the full disbursement of the loan was withheld subject to the submission of certain information and documents which the Applicant failed on number of occasions. The Applicant cannot raise such submissions at this stage specially when the Original Application has been allowed and decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Bank and against the Applicant on merits and after considering each aspect. The present Application and its contents filed cannot be clothed as an appeal specially when the right to challenge OA decree order is provided under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 separately.

1. 6. The Applicants concealed about the sanction of the Term Over Draft facility of Rs.50.00lakhs on certain terms and conditions, and the Applicant was required to close the said account on or before 30-04-2019, which was not abided by the Applicants. The copy of letter dated 22-04-2019 is filed as Annexure IV with this reply.

2. 7. That in view of aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons it is expedient in the interest of justice that aforesaid review application filed by Applicant be dismissed.

3. 8. Heard Ld. Counsel for Applicants and Respondent Bank.

4. 9. The application for review would lie when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the point.

5. 10. In absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

6. 11. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise.

The power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

12. In this matter, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay and Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has argued that there is no provision for condonation of delay in review application and the applicant was duly bound to file within 30 days from the date of award relying on principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 501 of 2020, *Standard Chartered Bank Vs MSTC Limited* decided on 21st January 2020.

S.20 of RDDB Act, 1993 says as under:-

(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.

(2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by a Tribunal with the consent of the parties.

(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order made, or deemed to have been made, by the Tribunal is received by him and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of [thirty days] [*Substituted by Act No. 44 of 2016.*] if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

S.21 of RDDB Act says as under:

(21). Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal.¹[fifty per cent.] of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under section 19:

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,²[reduce the amount to be deposited by such amount which shall not be less than twenty-five per cent. of the amount of such debt so due] to be deposited under this section Sub-section(2) of S.22 of the RDDB Act says:

(2). The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:—

(e) reviewing its decisions;

13. The Applicant No.1 borrower/mortgagor through Applicant No.2 being proprietor has filed three Review Applications against the judgment dated 21.8.2023, Review Application No.06 of 2023 in O.A. No. 378 of 2020 Uttarakhand Gramin Bank Vs M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises, Review Application No. 07 of 2023 in O.A. No. 377 of 2020 Uttarakhand Gramin Bank Vs M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises and Review Application No. 08 of 2023 in O.A. No. 379 of 2020 Uttarakhand Gramin Bank Vs M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises.

1. 14. The Review Application No.06 of 2023 has been filed 41 days delay as per applicants, filed on 31.10.2023, the Review Application No.07 of 2023 has been filed 60 days delay as per applicants, filed on 19.11.2023 and the Review Application No.08 of 2023 has been filed 71 days delay as per applicants, filed on 29.11.2023.

2. 15. In all the three Review Applications it is mentioned that the applicants/defendants did not get a copy of judgment dated 21.08.2023, then on 20.9.2023 applied for the certified copy and received by the counsel of applicants/defendants on 03.10.2023, since 02.10.2023 the Defendant No.2 Shri Puneet Sehgal fell ill and suffered with the viral fever and became very weak. Hence he could not come to sign and sworn the affidavit of the review petition. The medical certificate of the same person has also been annexed by applicants as Annexure No-1 in each review petition.

3. 16. It is very interesting in this matter, Sh. Puneet Sehgal felt ill as firstly come forward for filing R.A. No. 06/2023 on 31.10.2023, again for filing R.A. No. 07/2023 on 19.11.2023 and lastly for filing R.A. No. 08/2023 on 29.11.2023 as per the Review petitions. In absence of any law the conduct of Applicant no.2 Sh. Puneet Sehgal is speaking loudly about filing the Review petitions after expiry of limitation in frequent manner. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no need of certified copy even for appeal, a website copy is sufficient for filing Review Application.

4. 17. Rule 5A of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 states as follows:

**5A Review:-**

1. (1) Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record desires to obtain a review of the order made against

him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.

1. (2) No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.

2. (3) Where it appears to the Tribunal that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application but where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, shall grant the same:

1. 18. A reading of the aforesaid provisions of RDDB Act and Rules, 1993 would show that review petitions are dealt with in RDDB Act – S. 22 (2)(e) with Rule 5-A of the Rules.

Such applications are not for recovery of debts but are only applications to correct errors apparent on the face of the record in a judgment that has been delivered on original application filed for recovery of borrowed money under RDDB Act Section 19.

1. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of S. 22 (2)(e) of RDDB Act and Rule 5-A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 laid down that an application under RDDB Act Section 22 (2)(e) read with Rule 5A of the Rules exclude review applications from the purview of Section 24 of RDDB Act.

2. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank's case (supra) held that the peremptory language of Rule 5A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that Rule 5A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a review petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment, with effect from 04.11.2016, to 30 days. From this two things are clear: one, whether in the original or unamended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as is contained in Section 20(3) of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation - otherwise they would not be maintainable.

1. 21. The Review petition is time barred as admitted by applicants and conduct adopted by Applicant No.2 in filing review petitions. In the light of provisions of RDDB Act & Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the conduct of Applicant No.2 in relation to filing review petition, the review petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this point only.

2. 22. Ld. Counsel for applicants has also raised a point of illegal classification of account as NPA dated 29.07.2019. The Ld. counsel for respondent bank has argued that the respondent bank has issued demand notice in 2019 but the applicants had not submitted any representation or objection u/s 13(3-A) of SARFAESI Act as the classification of NPA has come in the perview of SARFAESI Act, the demand notice was issued u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act.

3. 23. Ld. Counsel has raised the point in relation to extension of CC limit and non-releasing of total term loan, firstly these points are of merit and the applicants could have been raised before Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in appeal if no relief has been granted by passing judgment in original application filed by secured creditor for recovery of borrowed money, not entitled to raise the said point in review petition and claimed relief.

4. 24. The Applicant no.2 Sh. Puneet Sehgal has submitted an affidavit by diary no. 6792 dated 07.11.2024 that the defendant (applicant in this review petition) had sought loan from the bank, wherein the defendant had mortgaged his property (B) bearing cantonment Board no. 144, General Wing Prem Nagar Dehradun Bhumi Khasra no. 185/1 Mauza Arcadia Grant Pargana Pachwadoon District Dehradun, the sister of the defendant Smt. Simranjeet Kaur has filed civil suit no. 299 of 2024, Smt. Simranjeet Kaur Vs Ruchika Thakral & Ors in which bank is also a party with certified copy of plaint. The Applicant No.2 is also party in this civil suit.

Plaintiff stated as under:-

Para 5: वादिनी की बहन प्रतिवादी सं० 1, प्रतिवादी सं० 3 के साथ संयुक्त रूप से व्यापार करती है तथा दोनों के द्वारा संयुक्त व्यापार का संचालन किया जा रहा है तथा उनके साथ प्रतिवादी सं० 2 की भी हिस्सेदारी है।

Para 7: प्रतिवादी सं० 1, 2 व 3 प्रतिवादी सं० 4 के साथ साजिश रचकर वादग्रस्त सम्पत्ति को विक्रय करना चाहते हैं जिसका उन्हें कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं है। प्रतिवादी सं० 3, जो कि एक शातिर किस्म का व्यक्ति है, के द्वारा प्रतिवादी सं० 4 के साथ सांठ-गांठ कर वादग्रस्त सम्पत्ति को खूर्द-बूर्द करने की साजिश रच रहे हैं तथा प्रतिवादी सं० 4 द्वारा प्रतिवादी सं० 1, 2 व 3 के साथ मिलकर बिना प्रपत्रों की जांच किये वादिनी के भाग वाली सम्पत्ति को भी खूर्द-बूर्द करने का प्रयास किया जा रहा है।

25. The applicant No. 2 / deponent of affidavit is Defendant No.3 in the above O.S. No. 299 of 2024. The applicant No. 2 has also filed another application with affidavit by diary No.4948 dated 08.08.2024 in relation to mortgaged property and stated that the sisters of the defendant (applicant in review application) Ruchika Thakral & Nandini Dhawan have filed civil suit No. 111 of 2024 Smt. Ruchika Thakral + 1 Vs Sh. Puneet Sehgal & Others in which bank is the party and the applicant has tried to get benefit of S.52 of Transfer of Property Act, also made prayer that No recovery certificate or order of attachment or order for auction of the property by sale be ordered or else it would result to be grave injustice.

The photocopy of certified copy of plaint is submitted by applicant No.2 on record. Smt. Simranjeet Kaur is Defendant No.2 in this original

(2^nd Floor, Paras Tower, Saharanpur Road, Mazra, Dehradun, Uttarkahand-248171)

suit. The Defendant No.3 to 5 is the bank and bank is represented by Chairman, General Manager and Branch Manager.

As per para 10 of the plaint the mortgage executed by Defendant No.1 (applicant No. 2 of review application) is admitted in favour of bank.

26. Both the suits have been filed after more than ten years from date of death of Sh. Badri Nath Sehgal (father of Sh. Puneet Sehgal).

It is clear from the above that the Applicant No.2 proprietor of Applicant No.1 was not fair from the date apply for financial assistance and succeed in getting financial assistance, eventhough not entitled as per disclosure on the part of Applicant No.2 after a period of more than 10 years.

27. The Applicant No.1 through Applicant No.2 has gotten financial assistance in the year 2008 firstly. The equitable mortgage has taken place in the year 2013 as per secured creditor mentioned in judgment dated 21.08.2023. The Applicant No.2 has no faith in law and fear from any situation. He is expert fully as stated by his sister also in the plaint about him.

28. The point of NPA is the part of SARFAESI action, could not be raised in recovery proceedings u/s. 19 of RDDB Act. The aggrieved person may approach the Tribunal u/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act, if feel prejudice by action of the secured creditor in relation to SARFAESI action. And also if not relief has been granted by the Tribunal in relation to classification of account as NPA in original proceedings, in that case, there is a remedy of appeal not the Review Application.

29. The applicants have choose to file review petition in place of filing appeal in purposeful manner, only to avoid the compliance of S.21, RDDB Act.

The conduct of the Applicant No.2 himself has shown that the applicant has faith in frivolous and unnecessary litigation as discussed above and the review petition is liable to be dismissed.

30. The review petition is dismissed in the light of above discussions, Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Record be consigned.

***If any party feel grievance, may approach Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.***

**Dated: 11.08.2026**

(Umesh Kumar Sharma) Presiding Officer DRT, Dehradun