AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson
This Appeal is preferred under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) against order dated 7.2.2018 in RA No.4/2014 in SA No.291/2013 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai.
Respondents herein filed SA No.291/2013 challenging E-Auction Sale Notice dated 13.9.2013 issued by the appellant bank in respect of schedule mentioned properties, which are three in number i.e., Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3.
Main contention raised in the Securitisation Application is that valuation of properties was not obtained by appellant bank before bringing secured assets for sale. Considering contentions and rival contentions of both parties, Tribunal below allowed SA 291/2013 on 12.8.2014, holding that valuation report was filed only for Lot 2 property and in respect of other Lots, valuation reports were not filed by appellant bank and on that ground Sale Notice dated 13.9.2013 was set aside. Appellant herein thereafter filed RA 4/2014 seeking review of the order dated 12.8.2014, by contending that appellant filed valuation reports along with counter in SA 291/2013 and the observation of Tribunal below is not correct and it is a mistake apparent on the face of record and that order dated 12.8.2014 has to be reviewed. Tribunal below dismissed the said Review Application holding that there is no mistake apparent on the face of record and the contention of appellant herein that they have filed valuation reports along with counter is incorrect and as there is no error apparent on the face of record, there are no grounds to review. It is further recorded that for the mistake of appellant, court cannot review its order and by quoting provisions under Rule 5A of ‘The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993,’ Tribunal below recorded that there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 12.8.2014 and Review Application is without any merits and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is preferred.
Heard both sides.
According to appellant, Ld. Presiding officer should have observed that serious prejudice will be caused to appellant bank by setting aside E-Auction Sale Notice dated 13.9.2013 and ought to have considered the Memo filed by the appellant that secured properties are sold in public auction and respondents have not chosen to challenge the same even after considerable period of time. It is further contended that Ld. Presiding Officer ought to have perused the valuation reports filed along with Review Application and based on that ought to have reviewed the order dated 12.8.2014.
On the other hand, it is the contention of advocate for respondents that Tribunal below rightly rejected the Review Application and valuation reports filed alongwith Review application clearly show that appellant bank has not filed the same along with counter to main Securitisation Application, i.e. SA 291/2013. It is also submitted that due to mistake on the part of appellant bank, Tribunal below cannot review its order and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with order dated 7.2.2018 in RA 4/2014.
I have perused material papers including impugned order dated 7.2.2018. As already referred above, present appeal is against rejection of RA 4/2014. Admittedly, appellant bank has not preferred any appeal challenging order dated 12.8.2014 passed in SA 291/2013. As rightly pointed out by advocate for respondents, remedy under Review is very limited and only in case where there is mistake apparent on the face of record, order can be reviewed. As referred above, though appellant contended that they filed valuation reports along with counter, fact remains that only one valuation report was filed alongwith counter and other two reports were filed along with Review Application. So, at the time of passing order on 12.8.2014 in SA 291/2013, only one valuation report was available and taking it into consideration, E-Auction Sale Notice dated 13.9.2013 was set aside. When appellant has not filed relevant papers and relevant documents before Tribunal below, it cannot complain that Tribunal below committed mistake and order dated 12.8.2014 is a mistake apparent on the face of record. As rightly pointed out by Tribunal below, pleading in Review Application is not correct and Review Application is not maintainable, as appellant has not filed valuation reports during enquiry of SA 291/2013.
As per Rule 5A of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, only ground under which remedy of review can be availed is mistake or error apparent on the face of record. No other grounds are provided unlike grounds under CPC. Therefore, by producing Valuation Certificates along with Review Application appellant cannot avail remedy of review and Tribunal below rightly dismissed the Review Application.
On a scrutiny of material, I am of the considered view that Tribunal below has not committed any error in rejecting Review Application and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with order dated 7.2.2018 in RA 4/2014 in SA 291/2013 and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, Appeal RA (SA) 54/2018 is dismissed, with no order as to costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.