AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. S. Kulhari, Chairperson
The matter was preponed on the basis of an urgency application filed by the applicants. Since the learned counsels for both the parties were agreed to argue to the matter finally, therefore, they were heard.
This review application has been filed on 18.09.2019 for modification of the order dated 4.6.2019 along with application for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the copy of order dated 4.6.2019 passed by this Tribunal was received on 26.06.2019. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the letter dated 17.07.2019 of the Bank. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.08.2019 with the liberty to institute the fresh proceeding before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the present review petition was filed within a month on 18.09.2019, therefore, the delay occurred in filing the review application be condoned.
Although the application was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, but considering the reason that the borrower was pursuing the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was withdrawn with liberty, so the delay occurred in filing the review petition is condoned. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is disposed off.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 04.06.2019 declared the sale as illegal and set aside the proceedings of the Bank directing to return the sale price to the auction purchaser with interest and to convey the outstanding including the 'costs and expenses' to the borrower within 15 days and the borrower to liquidate the whole outstanding within 15 days thereafter, but the Bank has included the expenses incurred in issuing the possession notice as well as in conducting the sale, which had been declared illegal by this Tribunal. The applicants are not liable to bear such costs and expenses. Further, the Bank has wrongly calculated the interest on the outstanding and is going to recover the amount of interest, which has been paid to the auction purchaser in compliance of the order dated 4.6.2019 and for this purpose, the Bank has issued fresh demand notice dated 21.08.2019 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, it should be clarified that the Bank should not charge the additional interest from 24.12.2013 and is only entitled for the costs incurred prior to the possession notice.
On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that by way of this review petition, the applicants are trying to reopen the whole case, whereas the dispute regarding rate of interest and the outstanding is not at all the scope of this application.
Considered the arguments and perused the record.
It is settled proposition of law that the scope of review is very limited. The order can be reviewed only to the extent of any mistake or error apparent on the face of record and the whole case cannot be reopened under the garb of review application and even the wrong finding recorded in the order cannot be rectified, otherwise, the same Tribunal would act as an appellate authority.
In the instant case, this Tribunal has directed the Bank to convey the remaining outstanding including the costs and expenses after adjustment of the amount deposited by the applicants. Thus, there was a specific order with regard to costs and expenses. If the applicants had any objection with regard to this finding, they ought to have challenged the same, but it cannot be rectified by way of this review petition, otherwise, it would amount to reconsideration of the matter.
Further, the issue of alleged wrong application of rate of interest and the period of interest cannot be considered in this review petition, because such pleading was not even the part of the appeal. Moreover, the Bank has issued the fresh demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act and the amount mentioned therein cannot be agitated upon in this review petition. The applicants are free to make the representation under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act against the said notice and may also challenge the proceedings of the Bank as available to them under the law.
In view of the above, the review application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
A copy of this application be sent to the parties as well as to the DRT concerned and be also uploaded on the e-DRT portal.