MS Shivtara Properties Pvt Ltd vs INDIAN BANK on 31 October 2026

Judgment

(Delivered on 31st October, 2026)

1. The applicant being aggrieved by the Judgment passed in SA No.365/2023 have filed the present application for review. It is the case of the applicants they they have raised several grounds and have relied upon the Authorities which have not been considered or adjudicated and the Order suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. The applicants have claimed following main reliefs:

a) Review the Final Order dated 29/07/2026 passed in Securitisation Application No.365 of 2023, and consider and adjudicate the grounds, contentions and authorities raised by the Applicants which have remained un- adjudicated, as set out hereinabove;

b) Recall and set aside the said Order to the extent of the errors apparent on the face of the record, and re-hear and decide Securitisation Application No.365 of 2023 upon the said grounds in accordance with law.

2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing Reply below the said Application challenged the maintainability of the present

application.

3. Defendant No.3 by filing Reply below the said Application resisted the application by contending that there is no error apparent on the face of record in the Judgment passed in SA No.365/2023 and therefore, the present Application is not maintainable.

4. The following points arise for my determination and I record my findings as under:

Whether present Application for review of final order dated 29th July, 2026 passed in SA No.365/2023 is maintainable?

Whether applicants prove that there are errors apparent on the face of record in the Judgment passed in SA No.365/2023 and therefore, requires to set aside the Order thereof to the extent of errors apparent on the face of record?

What order?

Findings:

1. Point No.1 – In the affirmative

2. Point No.2 – In the negative

3. Point No.3 - As per final order.

[Kaur] (MA No.45/2026) Page 5 of 14

Reasons

5. Heard the learned Advocates for rival parties and also considered Notes of Submissions and Supplementary Notes of Submission file by applicants (Exhibit-6, 7 and 8).

6. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants relied upon the following Judgments:

Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4985.

Mathew Varghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610.

ARCE Polymers Private Limited Vs. Alphine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Ors reported in (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 221.

M/s. Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank [Writ Petition No.18157 of 2022 decided by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court on 24th November, 2022].

Vedhanayaga Pandiyan Vs. Authorised Officer, [C.R.P. (MD) No.1212 of 2024 decided by Hon’ble Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, on 30th August, 2024].

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Noble Kumar

[Kaur] (MA No.45/2026) Page 6 of 14

reported in (2013) 9 SCC 620.

Balkrishna Rama Tarle (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16013 of 2022 (Supreme Court).

Satishkumar Surendra Shetty Vs. District Collector reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2847.

Masscorpn Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 2579. Point No.1

7. The applicants have filed this application for review of Judgment passed in SA No.365/2023 whereas the defendant Bank and Auction Purchaser have challenged maintainability of Review Application by filing Reply below the said Application.

8. However, Rule 5A(1) of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 explicitly empowers Tribunal to review order made by it on account of some mistake error apparent on the face of the record. The said view has been supported in the case of Inderjeet Arya Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.7253 of 2011 and in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah (P) Ltd. by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the present application is maintainable and I answer this point in the affirmative. Point No.2 and 3

9. The applicants are seeking review of Judgment passed in SA No.365/2023 on the following grounds:

10. Ground I - In paragraph 39, this Hon’ble Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that the sale “was conducted on 20.05.2023 and on the same date, it has been confirmed. “and computed the period of forty-five days from 20.05.2023 is ending on 04.07.2023. However, in paragraph 18 of the very same Order, this Hon’ble Tribunal has recorded that “the Sale Certificate was executed on 19th June, 2023.

11. However, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record with respect to aforementioned ground. The findings are recorded within framework of law. The contention recorded in paragraph-18 are referred in this ground. But they are pleadings of defendant Bank which are reproduced in the Judgment.

12. Ground II – In paragraph 4 of the Securitisation Application the applicants had expressly pleaded that the outcome of the auction was not communicated to them; that their letter dated 12/06/2023 seeking the fate of the sale remained un-replied seeking the fate of the sale remained un-replied; and that they acquired knowledge of the confirmation of the sale only on 03/07/2023, when Respondent No.1 disclosed the same in its Affidavit in Reply in Interim Application No.1338 of 2023 – so that limitation ran from 04/07/2023 (the said letters dated 12/06/2023 and 14/06/2023 being annexed at Annexure U (colly), pages 188 to 191 and the order dated 03/07/2023 recording the said disclosure at Annexure T, to the Securitisation Application. This Hon’ble Tribunal did not advert to the said pleaded date of knowledge at all, though it went to the very root of the objection of limitation.

13. However, findings given in paragraph 38 and 39 of Judgment passed in SA No.365/2023 are intermingled with each other. The finding of contentions in paragraph No.38 reflects in paragraph No.39 of the Judgment.

14. Ground III – In paragraph 39, this Hon’ble Tribunal held that “other objections regarding disputed sale of the suit property raised by the applicants are devoid of consideration”. The following grounds, specifically pleaded in paragraph 5.29 of the Securitisation Application, thereby stood wholly un-adjudicated: (a) the want of a clear thirty days’ notice under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) [ground (a)]: (c) the non- affixation of the sale notice on a conspicuous part of the property under Rule 8(7) [ground (c)]; (d) the failure to obtain a valuation report prior to the sale under Rule 8(5), and the adverse inference arising from the non-production of the valuation report despite the written demand dated 12/06/2023 (Annexure U colly) [ground (d)]; and (f) the material irregularity in the conduct of the sale [ground (f)]. Non-consideration of these material pleaded grounds is an error apparent.

15. However, since Securitisation Application filed is held as barred by limitation, I came to conclusion that there is no necessity to deal with objections regarding procedure of sale of the suit property.

16. Ground IV – The applicants had pleaded (paragraph 5.29

ground (e)) that the Respondent Bank’s own two empaneled Panel Valuers had, in the Sanction Letter, assessed the bungalow at Rs.15,50,00,000 and Rs.15,12,19,000/- respectively as on 15/04/2017 (the said Sanction Letter dated 25/04/2017 being Annexure D, at page 93, to the Securitisation Application and the said valuations being those of the approved Panel Valuers Er. Umesh Prasad and Er. Mahadev R. Kalburgi); that the property, of a realizable value exceeding Rs.22 Crores, was put to sale at a reserve of Rs.7,50,00,000 – less than half the Respondent Bank’s own valuation; and that Respondent No.3 had bid without inspecting the property, disclosing collusion. This ground, resting on the Respondent Bank’s own documents, was not considered at all.

17. However, finding in respect of this ground is related to findings recorded in paragraph No.39 of the Judgment.

18. Ground V – This Hon’ble Tribunal also did not consider or adjudicate: the failure of the learned District Magistrate to record his satisfaction upon the statutory nine-point affidavit [ground (k)]: the non-application of mind by the learned District Magistrate, apparent from the incorrect recording of the date of NPA, the date of sanction and the sanctioned amount [ground(l)]; the capitalization of penal interest comprised in the Demand Notice, impermissible under Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367 [ground (q)]; the non-service of the notice under Section 13(4) and the violation of Rule 4(2-A) [ground (t)]; and the Panchnama dated 08/06/2023 (Annexure W to the Securitisation Application) not being in accordance with Rule 4(1) ground (u)].

19. Ground VI – In paragraph 41 and 42, this Hon’ble Tribunal held that “the order of District Magistrate is required to be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and not before DRT”. This is contrary to the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a measure under Section falls within Section 17(1) and is challengeable before this Hon’ble Tribunal – Kanaiyalal Lalchnad Sachdev Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 782; Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Noble Kumar(2013) 9 SCC 620. A finding running counter to binding precedent is an error apparent. Further, the affidavit borne on the record of the learned District Magistrate being admittedly that of an unconnected borrower (M/s. SSR Distillation and Blending Units Pvt. Ltd.), borne on the record through the Section 14 application and affidavit at Annexure P (and the impugned order under Section 14 at Annexure A colly) to the Securitisation Application, the same could not have been excused upon the conjecture that a “mistake.. committed by the District Magistrate.. cannot be ruled out”, contrary to the record, as the Affidavit as claimed by the Bank was never brought on record.

20. However, in respect of Ground V & VI allegations of applicants in respect of Order passed under Section 14 by the District Magistrate has been elaborately dealt with in paragraph No.41 and 42 of the Judgment.

21. Ground VII – In paragraph 43, this Hon’ble Tribunal disposed of all the authorities cited on behalf of the Applicants in a single sentence, holding that they “are not applicable… as they turn on different points” without assigning any reasons.

22. However, after considering Authorities of both parties they have been dealt with in paragraph No.43 of the

Judgment.

23. The Ground VIII mentioned in the application is not considerable as no objection is taken by defendant seriously.

24. Ground IX – In paragraph 34 of the impugned Judgment, this Tribunal has held that as no objection pertaining to the bifurcation of dues was raised within the stipulated time therefore the same cannot be considered at this stage.

25. However, the said finding has been recorded based on facts and record of the case.

26. In view of these observations, I hold that there are no errors apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment passed in SA No.365/2023 and therefore, no need to review the same. Therefore, the application is liable for dismissal.

27. Before parting with Judgment, I mention with regard that Authorities cited on behalf of the applicants are not helpful to the applicants.

Therefore, by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

Miscellaneous Application No.45/2026 is dismissed with costs Pronounced in open Court

Place : Pune Date 31.10.2026 Sd/- (Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune