Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, NANI TAGIA
Gopal Kumar Singh S/o Sri Ram Ratan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank a body Corporate and Constituted under the Banking Companies Act Through its Head Office at 112, Bengaluru – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.
The appellant was the 6th respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by a borrower who defaulted a loan availed from the respondent-bank and invited proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short).
2. The borrower-defaulter filed securitisation application numbered as S.A. No. 208 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, Bihar. The matter was heard and the application stood rejected on 20.03.2019. The borrower filed a review from the said application which stood allowed by judgment dated 01.09.2021. The bank filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRAT’ for short), from the order in review, which stood allowed by order dated 11.11.2022; which was challenged by the borrower in the writ petition from which this appeal arises, producing the appellate order at Annexure-P/1. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, which, the appellant-purchaser under the SARFAESI Act, has challenged in the above appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. P.K. Shahi,
The review of orders under the SARFAESI Act is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to re-hear matters or consider new evidence.
Review petitions in DRT are permissible only for mistakes apparent on the record, not for re-evaluating the merits of prior decisions.
The SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious and expeditious remedy to borrowers under Section 17, allowing them to challenge the actions of the secured creditor. The absence of a judicial remedy under C....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the availability of statutory alternative ....
The SARFAESI Act provisions, including the enforcement of security interest, the rights of the borrower, the appeal process, and the non-maintainability of writ petitions against private financial in....
though existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional....
Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is limited to correcting patent errors; it does not allow for rehearing of matters on merits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
