The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal directed the parties to attempt an amicable settlement and disposed of the miscellaneous appeal without deciding on the request for expedited hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No.147/2022 Arising out of O.A.No.370/2016 (DRT-I, Delhi)
Canara Bank Vs
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors.
19.07.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Ms. Amit Dhall, Ld. counsel for the appellant (applicant) Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ld. counsel for respondent Canara Bank
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Misc. Appeal (application) No.147/2022
This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant for release of property documents as early as possible and preferably within a week.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ld. counsel for the respondent Bank states that there are number of questions which fall for consideration. It is submitted that documents involved in the present OA are in fact also deposited as an extended mortgage for one property situated in Panchsheel and there is also negative lien on one property situated in Brijwasan.
Heard. All these facts no doubt will be heard and considered by the Ld. DRT-I while disposing of the application.
Mr. Amit Dhall, Ld. counsel for the applicant requests that DRT-I be directed to hear and dispose of the application within a week.
The request of Ld. counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted as the same is not possible keeping in mind the workload. However, in the interest of justice, the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I is requested to take up the matter for hearing on 01.08.2022 and if it not possible to take up matter on the said date due to any unavoidable reason, it be taken up immediately thereafter and decide the same preferably within a period of one week thereafter.
Ld. counsel for the applicant further states that in case Ld. counsel for the respondent bank intends to file reply to the application pending before the Ld. DRT-I, he should file the same on or before 01.08.2022.
-: 2 :-
Ld. counsel for the bank states that she will file the reply on or before 01.08.2022.
Ld. counsel for the respondent bank further submits that number of other cases are pending between the parties and the respondent bank is ready to settle the matter, but the amount offered by the applicant is meager and, therefore, the OTS was rejected.
Heard. Since there are chances of settlement, let both the parties sit together and try to settle the matter amicably.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(CHAIRPERSON)
Canara Bank
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
