Review jurisdiction is narrowly confined to correcting manifest errors and cannot substitute appellate proceedings.

O R D E R

The Review Petition is filed against the judgment dated

24.10.2025 in O.P.(DRT) No.183 of 2025, wherein this Court directed the petitioner to comply with the deposit mandated under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act , as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal on 07.04.2025, and held that the expression “debt due” under the proviso to Section 18(1) includes interest accruing even after the issuance of notice under Section

13(2) of the Act.

2. The petitioner had earlier filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.P.(DRT)

No.183 of 2025 seeking extension of time. The said application was withdrawn, reserving liberty to file a Review Petition.

3. The Review Petition is premised mainly on Ground C, which reads as under:

“C. Pursuant to Exhibit P1 and P2 notices, the petitioner has deposited Rs.50 lakhs as per Exhibits P3 and P4 and Rs.1 crore as per Exhibits P7 to P10. The Review Petitioner has also deposited Rs.25 lakhs pursuant to the judgment in O.P.(DRT) No.456/2023. The petitioner has further made payment of Rs.50 lakhs pursuant to the OTS as per Exhibits P17 to P20. The above payments deposited with the Bank were not considered by this Hon’ble Court while passing the judgment.”

4. This Court, on 28.11.2025, directed the 1st respondent to file a counter specifically as regards the contentions taken in Ground C.

5. A statement has been filed by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent pursuant to the above directions as follows:

“3. It is submitted that all the said payments were duly appropriated/ adjusted to the loan accounts. The initial payments amounting to Rs.50 lakhs are duly reflected in Exhibit P3 and P4 bank statement of the principal borrower (Kaerltech Projects Pvt Ltd) in the entries dated 22/08/2015, 27/09/2016, 31/10/2016 and 01/11/2016. The payments made in compliance of Exhibit P6 interim order of the DRT were duly adjusted to the loan accounts of the Petitioner as and when payments were made (in installments), i.e on 15/03/2017, 30/03/2017, 12/04/2017 and 12/05/2017 (totaling Rs.1 Crore). The remaining amount of Rs.25 Lakhs and 50 Lakhs, were jointly adjusted as per Exhibit R1(a) OTS on the date when the signed copy of the OTS was received (i.e on 11/10/2024). Petitioner has no case that such payments were not adjusted to the loan accounts.

4. This Hon'ble Court in paragraph 3 .1 of the judgment dated 24.10.2025 has recorded the submission of this respondent that payments were adjusted to the loan account. The argument that the payments made by the Petitioner have not been considered is therefore without merit.

5. The amount of "debt as claimed by the secured creditor" for the purpose of Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act , is determined after giving due credit to all payments made by the Petitioner. The amount ordered to be deposited by the DRAT (Rs.1.57 Crores) is less than 50% of the debt amount.

6. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has also accepted the total outstanding of Rs.11,25,45,215/- as on 31.07.2024 in Exhibit R1(a) OTS letter. The amount ordered to be deposited by the DRAT (Rs.1.57 Crores) is less than 50% of even this amount.”

6. In view of the stand of the bank that all payments made are credited and in the absence of anything on record to discredit the said stand, I am not inclined to proceed further in a review.

7. It is trite that the principles governing the exercise of review jurisdiction are narrowly circumscribed and distinct from appellate powers. A review is maintainable only on the limited grounds recognised in law, namely, the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time of the original decision; or the existence of an error apparent on the f