The DRAT held that the non-filing of a written statement by SBI did not automatically entitle the counter-claim to succeed and emphasized that review jurisdiction was limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai Bench headed by Justice Ashok Menon (Chairperson) addressed an appeal and held that a review application cannot succeed merely on the ground of non-filing of a written statement to a counter-claim unless substantive proof is provided, and a review cannot serve as a rehearing to substitute a different view absent an error apparent on the face of the record.
This appeal arose from the order dated 04/02/2009 in Review Application No. 1 of 2008 in Original Application (O.A.) No. 3653 of 2000 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.), wherein the DRT allowed the review application only in part. The appellant, the third defendant in the O.A., sought a review of the judgment and order dated 06/06/2002, contending negligence on the part of the State Bank of India (SBI), the creditor, in handling hypothecated goods. SBI had granted credit facilities to M/s SLBS Ispat Pvt. Ltd., the principal borrower, with the appellant acting as a guarantor/mortgagor. After repayment defaults, SBI initially filed Suit No. 1192 of 1995 before the Bombay High Court, which was later transferred to the DRT.
The defendants filed a written statement along with a counter-claim, alleging that the hypothecated stock consisting of 130 M.T. of MS plates valued at ₹24.05 lakhs and 120 M.T. of tin plates worth ₹42 lakhs deteriorated due to the bank's negligence. The defendants claimed that despite letters written between March and August 1996 requesting proper storage and safeguarding of the stock, the goods deteriorated to 30 M.T. of MS plates and 70 M.T. of tin plates by November 1996, as evidenced by the receiver's report. The defendants sought compensation of ₹55 lakhs with 24% interest, aggregating to ₹115.12 lakhs. However, no written statement was filed by SBI against the counter-claim. In its judgment, the DRT dismissed the counter-claim, holding that SBI could not be blamed for the reduction in hypothecated goods since they were under the Court receiver's possession after the High Court's order dated 03/08/1996. The DRT directed the defendants to pay SBI ₹81,21,856.85 with 16.5% interest per annum and issued a Recovery Certificate.
The appellant sought review on the grounds that ₹19.65 lakhs paid to SBI during the pendency of the O.A. had not been considered, and the counter-claim was dismissed without SBI filing a written statement. The DRT, in its review order, acknowledged that SBI had received ₹19.65 lakhs, allowing the review to that extent. However, it rejected the plea regarding the counter-claim, stating that non-filing of a written statement did not entitle the counter-claim to succeed without substantive proof. Consequently, the review was allowed in part, and the Recovery Certificate was rectified.
In the appeal, the appellant argued that SBI's negligence resulted in the deterioration and pilferage of goods, pointing to the bank’s deployment of security guards since 1993 and the Court receiver's report of October 1996, which recorded only 92.456 M.T. of goods valued at ₹11.73 lakhs. The appellant relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Rajender Singh v. Lieutenant Governor and Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, to contend that ignoring material records constituted a valid ground for review. SBI refuted these claims, emphasizing that the appellant’s letter dated 21/08/1996 revealed that the bank did not have possession of the goods and that the review could not be treated as an appeal. SBI also contended that the DRT had already considered and rejected the counter-claim on merits.
The DRAT observed that the appellant failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. The deployment of security guards by SBI was aimed at preventing the removal of goods, and the letter dated 21/08/1996 indicated that the bank did not possess the goods at the material time. The Court receiver’s report lacked an inventory of goods at the time of possession, and the subsequent reduction in stock could not be solely attributed to SBI’s negligence. Citing established principles from Inderchand Jain and Lily Thomas, the DRAT reiterated that a review is not a rehearing and cannot substitute a different view. The tribunal held that no sufficient grounds for review existed beyond the admitted payment of ₹19.65 lakhs and dismissed the appeal, upholding the partial allowance of the review application by the DRT.
Mr. Harjot Singh Alang, i/b M/s Raval Shah & Co. Advocate represented the Appellant.
Mr. Vivek Sawant, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 1.
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
Comentários