DRT Mumbai Dismisses Borrower's Review Plea Seeking To Reopen Issues Already Decided.

The Mumbai bench of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has dismissed a borrower's review plea against Union Bank of India. The tribunal held that the applicant had failed to point out any patent error in its earlier order and was seeking to reopen issues that had already been decided.

Presiding Officer Sreekala Suresh observed:

“The application now filed against order dated 07.05.2024, which is seen to be a considered one, considering the rival contentions, where no patent error of omission as stated above, is substantiated by applicant, does not fall within the ambit for review.”

The plea was filed by Mercury Apparel Ltd., which sought a reconsideration of the Tribunal's May 7, 2024 order.

The company argued that the tribunal had not considered its written objections filed on February 5, 2024. It also contended that its objections under the SARFAESI Act had been treated as belated and that RBI master circulars relating to interest rates were not examined. Another grievance raised by the borrower was that connected proceedings contained findings that were internally inconsistent.

Union Bank opposed the application. The bank argued that the borrower was attempting to reopen issues that had already been adjudicated. According to the bank, the review petition was an attempt to reappreciate evidence and delay execution of the recovery certificate.

The tribunal was not persuaded.

It noted that the issue of interest had already been discussed in the earlier order. If the borrower disagreed with those findings, the remedy lay in an appeal and not in review proceedings, it held.

The Tribunal also rejected the contention relating to RBI circulars. It observed that examining that issue in review would require a reappreciation of evidence. The same applied to the borrower's challenge regarding interest calculations.

On the objection under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal held that once the objection had been found to be belated, there was no obligation to consider it further.

The tribunal further noted that the borrower had raised fresh allegations in the review petition. These included claims of document tampering, concealment of debit balance confirmation, misclassification, and overcharging of interest. According to the Tribunal, those grounds sought to challenge findings that had already been rendered on merits in the earlier order.

It also took note of the fact that a writ petition filed by the borrower before the High Court on identical grounds had not been entertained.

Explaining why the review could not succeed, the Tribunal observed:

“Reappreciation of evidence, recalculation of interest, reopening of factual disputes which are already decided, are now sought to be reviewed by this petition by the applicant, in the review petition.”

The Tribunal further observed,

“An error on the face of record must be, such as error which by mere looking at the record, must strike and it should not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points, where there may be possibility of two opinions. The normal principle is that, a judgment pronounced by court is final, and departure from that principle, is justified only when, circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.”

The tribunal consequently dismissed the review plea.