The Patna High Court has held that appellate tribunals retain the power to recall dismissed appeals-even after years-if procedural requirements are later fulfilled. The court set aside an earlier single judge decision and upheld the revival of a long-pending appeal involving a bank loan dispute.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a loan granted by UCO Bank to M/s Tirupati Storage and Allied Pvt. Ltd. After default, the account was classified as a non-performing asset, leading to recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Patna.
In 2012, the DRT allowed the bank’s claim and issued a recovery certificate exceeding ₹1.5 crore. The borrowers challenged the decision before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad in 2014.
However, their appeal was dismissed in March 2015 because they failed to deposit 50% of the dues-a mandatory condition under law for filing such appeals.
Years later, in 2023, the borrowers deposited around ₹76 lakh and sought restoration of their appeal. The DRAT allowed this request and revived the case.
This restoration order was challenged by the bank before the Patna High Court, where a single judge set it aside in September 2024, holding that the tribunal had no power to recall its order after such a long delay.
Hearing the intra-court appeal, a division bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra examined whether the DRAT had the authority to restore the appeal.
The bench observed that the law governing debt recovery tribunals allows them to review and recall their own orders in certain situations.
“The Tribunal is vested with powers akin to a civil court, including reviewing its decisions and setting aside dismissal orders,” the bench noted.
Importantly, the court clarified that dismissal of an appeal for failure to deposit money is not a decision on merits but a procedural outcome.
“The dismissal... was occasioned solely on account of non-compliance of the pre-deposit requirement,” the bench said, adding that such orders can be revisited once compliance is made.
The court also interpreted the legal provision requiring a borrower to deposit a portion of the debt before filing an appeal.
It explained that the phrase “shall not be entertained” does not mean the appeal is permanently barred.
“It only prevents the tribunal from proceeding with the appeal at that stage-it does not extinguish the right to appeal altogether,” the bench observed.
This means that if the required deposit is made later, the appeal can still be considered.
The High Court ultimately disagreed with the single judge’s view and held that the DRAT acted within its jurisdiction.
“The Appellate Tribunal did possess the jurisdiction to recall/restore its earlier order,” the bench concluded.
Setting aside the earlier High Court order, the division bench restored the DRAT’s decision to revive the borrowers’ appeal.
As a result, the appeal before the DRAT, Allahabad will now proceed for adjudication.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Tirupati Storage and Allied Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs UCO Bank & Ors.
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1093 of 2024 (arising out of CWJC No. 1388 of 2024)
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Decision Date: 16 April 2026
