AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the applicant.
The instant application is filed under Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993 read with Rule 22 of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994, Section 18(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Sections 19(25) and 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for the review of the order dated 27.01.2026.
This Tribunal, vide order dated 27.01.2026, had set aside the order passed by the Ld. DRT-II, Delhi in TSA No.127/2022 whereby I.A. No.1001/2023 was allowed to the extent that appellant herein was restrained from taking physical possession of the property. The relevant portion of order dated 27.01.2026 is reproduced as under:-
5.A bare perusal of the order would reflect that the impugned order was passed on the ground that notice under Section 13(4) published in one newspaper 'The Business Standard' in English and Hindi languages which is against the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2002. In the Securitization Application, limitation was sought for from 22.11.2021 whereby the date of hearing was fixed for 13.12.2021. Perusal of the Securitization Application and the IA categorically makes it clear that there was no ground made out to challenge the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Although challenge is made to notice under Section 14 of the Act in the Securitization Application, no ground is made out either in Securitization Application or in IA for challenging the same as required under the Act.
6.As far as notice under Section 13(4) is concerned, it is not under challenge, It was issued in the year 2019 and the SA was filed in the year 2022. Even in the limitation clause not a single word is stated about challenging the notice under Section 13(4). Accordingly, Ld. DRT has committed a patent mistake in passing the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.
The counsel for the applicant/respondent herein stated that applicant was not actual borrower and as such there was no error apparent on the face of the record. After careful perusal of the order dated 27.01.2026, this Tribunal does not find any error apparent on the face of the order warranting any review. The review application is dismissed accordingly.
At request, the DRT is, however, requested to make an endeavour for early disposal of present TSA.
File be consigned to record room.