The review jurisdiction of a Debts Recovery Tribunal must not exceed its limits and cannot reappraise evidence; compliance with auction valuation rules is essential but not grounds for review unless a clear error is evident.

ORDER :

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

Since, the issues raised in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

W.P.No.15369 of 2025

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/principal borrowers assailing the judgment dated 05.02.2025 passed in Appeal No.20 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (DRAT), which is preferred against the order dated 08-01-2024 in Review Petition No.3 of 2023 which was filed against the common order dated 22.05.2023 in Securitization Application (SA) No.87 of 2021 and Transfer Securitization Application (TSA) No.4 of 2021 (Old S.A.No.42/2021) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Hyderabad (DRT).

W.P.No.24372 of 2025

3. This Writ Petition is filed by the auction-purchaser of ‘A’ schedule property seeking declaration of the action of the respondent No.1 Bank in not delivering the physical possession of the property bearing Shop No.20 situated at ground floor of ‘Bhagyalaxmi Commercial Complex’ admeasuring 162.50 sq. ft. situated at Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad as per the registered Sale Certificate bearing Doc.No.1250 of 2023 dated 12.06.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, with a consequential direction to Respondent-Bank to deliver physical possession of the said property to the petitioner.

4. The facts emanated from the record in W.P.No.15369 of 2025 are that the petitioner No.1 is a manufacturer of jewellery containing gold, silver, precious metals and semi-precious stones, and during the course of business, the 1^st petitioner availed original and renewed credit facilities from the 1^st respondent Bank from time to time. The cash credit limit allowed by the 1^st respondent Bank was Rs.40 crores. Subsequently, it was reduced to Rs.35.35 crores vide Sanction Letter dated 06.12.2019 against the release of the mortgaged properties worth Rs.4.61 crores.

5. On default, the Respondent-Bank issued demand notice dated 11.02.2020 under Section 13 (2) SARFAESI Act (the Act), followed by possession notice dated 24.09.2020 under Section 13 (4) of the said Act. Eventually, an e-auction notice was issued dated 19.02.2021 and sale was conducted on 30.03.2021 in respect of Securitization Schedule (SA) properties. Aggrieved by same, the Principle Borrowers filed S.A.No.87/2021 & TSA No.4/2021 before DRT, Hyderabad, which were dismissed on 22.05.2023 holding Bank’s measures valid. Petitioners then filed Review Petition No.3/2023, which was partly allowed by DRT on 08.01.2024, setting aside the e-auction held on 30.03.2021 in respect of Schedule A & K properties, citing non-compliance with Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (The Rules).The Bank filed Appeal No.20/2024 before DRAT, Kolkata, who by order dated 05.02.2025, allowed the appeal and dismissed the Review Petition holding that DRT had exceeded its review jurisdiction.

6. Aggrieved thereby, borrowers filed W.P.No.15369/2025, while the auction purchaser filed W.P.No.24372/2025 seeking delivery of possession before this court.

7. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.V.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.15369 of 2025 and respondent Nos.2 to 9 in W.P.No.24372 of 2025, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24372 of 2025 and respondent No.2 in W.P.No15369 of 2025, and Sri B.Shiva Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

8. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel contend