Important Point – A perfectly legal order is not open to review.

B.P. Colabawalla, J.

1. This Review Petition seeks review of the order dated 10th June, 2015 passed by us in the above Writ Petition. On the date when the order under review was passed, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. We had perused the order passed by this Court on 21st July, 2014 when this Court had granted time to the Petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, the “DRAT”), Mumbai until further orders. The appeal filed by the Petitioner before the DRAT was still pending. In this view of the matter, we had extended the time granted by the DRAT for a further period of four weeks with a direction that if the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was not deposited in the aforesaid time, the appeal filed before the DRAT, Mumbai would stand dismissed. With this direction, the Writ Petition was disposed of. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the Petitioner appeared before us and submitted that this order may be reviewed as he was not heard before passing the said order. Since this order was passed in the morning session, we had stated that the Petitioner was at liberty to apply for review of this order by filing an appropriate application. It is in this light that the Review Petition has been filed before us.

2. Since the grievance of the Petitioner is that he was not heard before passing the order dated 10th June, 2015 and the issues raised by the Petitioner have not been dealt with by us in the said order, we have heard Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, at length to examine whether the order dated 10th June, 2015 is required to be reviewed by us.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner submitted that the order dated 30th June, 2014 passed by the DRAT, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application No.237 of 2010 in Appeal No.197 of 2010 was perverse and illegal as it was contrary to the mandate of section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the “SARFAESI Act”). We must mention here that the above referred Miscellaneous Application was a waiver application filed by the Petitioner seeking full waiver of deposit. By its order dated 30th June 2014, the DRAT, after hearing the parties, directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with the Registrar of the DRAT within a period of eight weeks in two equal installments. It was further directed that if the aforesaid deposit was not made, the appeal would stand dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that has really been put in issue before us.

4. Before we deal with the contentions raised by the Petitioner, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts. In the year 2003, the Petitioner – Company had availed of a cash credit facility from the Respondent – Bank to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/- vide Cash Credit Account No.147. The aforesaid facility was secured by mortgage of immovable as well as hypothecation of movable property. The immovable properties mortgaged was land admeasuring about 32.5R, situated at Survey No.65, Hissa No.5 (old Survey No.829, Hiss No.5) and land admeasuring of 1H and 57.7R situated at Chovishwadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgaged properties”).

5. Admittedly, the Petitioner defaulted in repayment and therefore the Respondent – Bank obtained a Recovery Certificate against the Petitioner under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Thereafter in the year 2006, the said Cash Credit Account was transferred to a separate ledger maintained by the Bank for defaulted accounts in which a decree/recovery certificate had been obtained.

6. The Petitioner admittedly did not make any payment to satisfy the recovery certificate issued against it. As on 31st July, 2007 the total outstanding amount due to the Respondent – Bank was Rs.96,14,085.61. In this view of the matter, the Respondent – Bank initiated pr