DRAT dismissed the appeal, finding the application to be a misconceived review petition, and upheld the final order regarding the deposit, as the original order remained unchallenged.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata Bench headed by Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava (Chairperson) addressed an appeal and held that an application filed after a final order has been passed, which seeks to review the order without any apparent error or typographical mistake, is not maintainable as a review petition; the Appellant’s claim for the return of the deposited amount must be addressed through proper procedural channels, and the finality of the original order stands.
The Appeal was filed against the order passed by the Learned DRT-II Hyderabad, which dismissed I.A. No. 2081 of 2019, seeking to direct the Respondent National Trust Housing Finance Ltd. and the Authorized Officer to collect an amount of ₹7,85,455 along with accrued interest. The Appellant had previously deposited this amount with the Registry of the DRT on 19th December 2008. The Learned DRT had issued a final order in S.A. No. 51 of 2017 on 12th May 2017, setting aside the auction sale and instructing the Respondents to refund the sale amount to the purchasers, with interest. The Appellant’s prayer was to have the deposited amount returned, but the Learned DRT rejected the I.A., ruling that the order was final and no errors had been found in it.
The Appellant contended that the financial institution should collect the amount from the Registry with accrued interest. However, the Court found that the order of 12th May 2017 was clear and not challenged, thereby attaining finality. The Appellant was not disputing the non-accrual interest on the deposited amount, thus admitting it was held in an interest-bearing account. The Application was filed over two years after the final order was passed and was found to be a misconceived attempt at a review petition, which was not legally maintainable. The Court upheld the Learned DRT’s decision, finding no irregularity or error in the original order. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was confirmed.
The Appeal was dismissed in limine at the admission stage, and the impugned order was confirmed. The matter was disposed of without any order for costs, and the file was consigned to the record room.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Comments