Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 05 DRAT CK 2958

Quick Connect Dot Com Limited vs Jammu & Kashmir Bank & Anr.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 4 May 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Chairperson
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No.41/2026 in RA No.06/2024 arising out of Tr. Appeal No.04/2023 (DRT-III, Delhi)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 340 words
1.

The present appeal is filed to challenge the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by DRT-III, Delhi in R.A. No.6/2024 filed in Transfer Appeal No.04/2023 titled as Quick Connect Dot Com Limited V. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited. The appellant filed a Review Application bearing No.6/2024 seeking review of the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the DRT in Transfer Appeal No.04/2023 arising out of order dated 19.02.2022 passed by the Recovery Officer in R.C. No.182/2019, under Section 22(2)(e) read with Section 19(25) RDB Act 1993 read with Rule 5A of the DRT(Procedure) Rules,1993. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.10.2025 is reproduced as under:-

The impugned order of 25.06.2024 is a speaking and reasoned one, passed after considering all relevant material. The ground urged in the review application are repetitive of the contentions already decided and do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record as contemplated under Rule 5A. The applicant's attempt is evidently to re-argue the matter and reopen the findings, which is impermissible.

2.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the Recovery Officer has attached three properties as appearing in the order of attachment at page 82 of the appeal paper book. It is further argued that the Recovery Officer has released two properties situated in Kolkata and passed the order in respect of the property at Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-62. It is also bearing on the record that the Recovery Officer has dismissed the objection vide order dated 19.02.2022. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed the review application which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2025.

3.

The DRT has categorically observed in the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 that during the course of arguments the appellant has failed to bring out any error apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the review application was filed.

4.

There is no material irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.10.2026 passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.