Delhi High Court
Syndicate Bank vs M/S. S.S.P. Tradex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 15 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: February 15, 2017
+ Review Petition No.55/2017 in W.P.(C) 296/2017
SYNDICATE BANK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. V. Sudeer, Advocate with Ms. Monika
Yadav, Advocate.
versus
M/S. S.S.P. TRADEX PVT. LTD. & ORS...... Respondents
Through Mr.B.S.Nagar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
ORDER
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
1. This is an application for review of a judgment and order dated
13.01.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the applicant
being W.P.(C) No.296/2017 has been dismissed.
2. The applicant, Syndicate Bank filed the said writ petition, inter
alia, challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Delhi whereby the order of the Debt Recovery
Tribunal -II, Delhi under appeal directing the applicant to
refund Rs.2 cores to the respondent No.1 has been stayed,
=====================================================================
Rev.Pet.55/2017 in W.P.(C) No.296/2017
subject to deposit of demand draft of Rs.2 crores by the
applicant with the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal.
3. The applicant Bank, a nationalised Bank lent and advanced
money to Nidhi Builders Pvt. Ltd., against the mortgage of
property at Plot no.9, Dwarka, New Delhi, hereinafter referred
to as the said property.
4. The Bank initiated proceedings against M/s. Nidhi Builders for
recovery of its dues. In course of the proceedings, it was
decided that the said property would be sold.
5. The respondent No.1 offered Rs.21.06 crores for purchase of
the said property and deposited a sum of Rs. 2 crores by way of
earnest money deposit.
6. The sale did not materialize. The respondent No.1 made an
application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II for refund of
the earnest deposit of Rs. 2 crores. The application was allowed
by an order dated 08.09.2016.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant Bank filed an
appeal and also sought stay of operation of the order under
appeal. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal granted stay of the order under
appeal, subject to the applicant bank depositing Rs.2 crores
=====================================================================
Rev.Pet.55/2017 in W.P.(C) No.296/2017
with the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by way of
demand draft.
8. The applicant Bank, challenged the said order of the Appellate
Tribunal, by filing a writ petition, which has been dismissed by
the judgment and order under review.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued
that there was error of law apparent on the face of the record, in
as much as this Court had, by its order dated 13.01.2017 under
review held that even though Section 21 of the Recovery of
Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, which
debars the Appellate Tribunal from entertaining an appeal of a
person by whom a debt is due to a bank of financial institution
unless he deposits 75% of the amount due from him, does not
strictly speaking, apply in case of the direction on a Bank to
refund money, the Appellate Tribunal could in exercise of its
inherent power call upon the applicant Bank to make a deposit.
10. Mr.Sudeer, appearing for the applicant Bank strenuously argued
that the Tribunal does not have any inherent powers. In support
of such submission Mr.Sudeer cited the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dharmender
Bohi, 2013 (12) SCALE 124; Union of India Vs. Orient Paper
and Industries Ltd. (2009)16 SCC 286 and Upper Doab Sugar
=====================================================================
Rev.Pet.55/2017 in W.P.(C) No.296/2017
Mills Ltd. Vs. Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Rly. Co.
Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 217.
11. Unfortunately, it is settled law that this Court cannot in the garb
of review of a judgment and order rehear the writ petition on
merits. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby
an erroneous decision can be corrected after re-hearing the case
as held by the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra & Co. Vs.
Government reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372. A final order can
only be reviewed if there is a patent error which has resulted in
gross miscarriage of justice.
12. The order under review does not have any error on its face. If
this Court misinterpreted the law and arrived at a wrong
finding, the order would have to be rectified in appeal by a
higher Forum.
13. The review application is, therefore, dismissed.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J
February 15, 2017/ n
=====================================================================
Rev.Pet.55/2017 in W.P.(C) No.296/2017
