Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited vs Vemula Ravi kumar on 4 August 2026

JUDGMENT

: 4th August, 2026 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

1. Instant appeal is preferred against order dated 11.12.2024 passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad in I.A. 1506 of 2024 in S.A. 115 of 2019 (Vemula Ravi Kumar -vs- Reliance Home Finance Limited) whereby Learned DRT dismissed the I.A. filed by the Secured Creditor for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing an application for review of the order dated 6.10.2023.

2. S.A. 115 of 2019 was filed by the Borrower challenging the action initiated by the Secured Creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. An application, I.A. 2735 of 2023, is filed for a direction to the Bank to receive Demand Notice amount with interest at the rate of 6% simple after deducting the payments made by the Petitioner. I.A. was allowed vide order dated 6.10.2023 and direction was issued to the Secured Creditor to charge simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on reduced balances from the date of N.P.A. till final payment.

4. Application for review of the order was filed with a delay of 170 days which was dismissed by the Learned DRT.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellant preferred the appeal.

6. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. As far as the facts are concerned, admittedly order dated 6.10.2023 was passed by the Learned DRT in presence of the Counsel of the parties. Thereafter, application for review was filed with a delay of 170 days. Law is well settled that in a review petition before the DRT provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation act would not be applicable, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Standard Chartered Bank -vs- MSTC Limited [(2020) 13 SCC 618] in paragraphs 17 and 21 that: “17. The judgment of this Court makes it plain, though in a slightly different context, that the only application that is referred to by Section 24 of the RDB Act is an application filed under Section 19 and no other. This being the case, an application for review, not being an application under Section 19, but an application under Section

22(2)(e) read with Rule 5-A of the Rules, this judgment would apply on all fours to exclude applications which are review applications from the purview of Section 24 of the RDB Act.” “21. The peremptory language of Rule 5-A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that Rule 5-A 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 4-11-2016, 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.”

8. Having considered the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order. Appeal lacks merits and liable to be dismissed.

O R D E R

Appeal is dismissed. Order dated 11.12.2024 passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad in I.A. 1506 of 2024 in S.A. 115 of 2019 (Vemula Ravi Kumar -vs- Reliance Home Finance Limited), is hereby affirmed. File be consigned to Record room. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website. Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson Dated: 4th August, 2026 ac