AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter was listed on 28.05.2026 but is taken up today as 28.05.2026 was declared holiday.
The respondent no. 1 filed O.A. bearing No. 40/2015 titled as M/s Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited V. Dr. Yashwant Sigh & another which was stated to be pending before the DRT-I, Delhi. DRT-I, Delhi vide impugned judgement dated 07.10.2022 allowed the O.A. and passed the certain directions against the appellant and other defendants in the O.A. bearing No. 40/2015. Thereafter the appellant filed a Review Application No. 01/2023 which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi.
The appellant during the pendency of Review Application No. 01/2023 filed I.A. bearing No. 2307/2025 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.01.2026. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 is reproduced as under:
6.The contention of the review applicants that the statement of account filed by the respondent FI requires fresh verification cannot be accepted. Further, the review applicants have contended that their objections to the statement of account filed by the respondent FI were not specifically adjudicated and this Tribunal is of the considered view that mere non-framing of a separate finding on each objection does not ipso facto constitute an error apparent on the face of record, especially when the final order has dealt with the core issue of recoverable debt after considering the pleadings and material on record. The plea of the review applicants that they have already repaid amounts exceeding the loan sanctioned has already been examined by this Tribunal in the final order dated 07.10.2022. The review applicants are attempting to seek a fresh adjudication on merits, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction and this Tribunal finds no error apparent on the face of the record, no clerical or arithmetical mistake.
7.In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the view that the present application is not maintainable and the prayers sought therein are beyond the scope of review jurisdiction and granting the reliefs prayed for would amount to reopening and re-adjudicating the OA, which is impermissible as per law. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed and it is clarified that dismissal of the present application shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending review application, which shall be decided on its merits in accordance with law.
Sh. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for the appellant argued that the statement of account filed by the respondent no. 1 is required to be verified afresh and the DRT-I, Delhi in the impugned order has made certain observations at the time of disposal of I.A. No. 2307/2025 vide impugned order dated 16.01.2026 which were not warranted. He further stated that the observation in para 6 of the impugned order may cause serious prejudice in the final disposal of Review Application No. 01/2023 against the appellant.
In view of the submissions made by Sh. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for the appellant and after considering all facts the present appeal is disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to raise all the pleas and contention as raised in the I.A. No. 2307/2025 at the time of consideration of Review Application No. 01/2023 and the final disposal of Review Application No. 01/2023 shall not be influenced by any observation made in the impugned order dated 16.01.2026.
Appeal stands disposed of.