The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal challenging a DRT order granting status quo of mortgaged property, directing a quick rehearing to address allegations of forgery and delayed proceedings.
DRT directed to rehear S.A. No. 143/2021 on the next date and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible.
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. 05/2022 Arising out of S.A. No. 143/2021 (DRT-I, Delhi)
Union Bank of India Vs Mansi Gupta &Ors.
02.11.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. Samrendra Kumar, Ld. Counsel for appellant. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1.
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
This is an appeal filed by the appellant to challenging the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by Ld. DRT whereby status quo of the property has been granted.
Ld. Counsel for appellant bank states that this application needs rehearing for the reason that Ld. DRT while passing the order has observed as under :-
“9. On perusal of the records, it appears that the respondent bank has filed the application before the Ld. CMM in the year 2018, while the order passed by the Ld. CMM on 27.08.2021 i.e. near about after three years. There is inordinate delay in issuance of order dated 27.08.2021. On the basis of the said order of Ld. CMM, the court receiver has issued the notice on 15.09.2021 fixing the date of taking physical possession of the property in question on 30.09.2021. Further, in this matter as per the S. applicant, the S. applicant has never mortgaged the property in question with the respondent bank and her signatures have been forged and in support, the S. applicant has filed the hand writing expert opinion. However, the respondent bank prima facie could not file any evidence to prove that the signatures of the S. applicant are not forged one, therefore, prima-facie case and balance of convenience is existing in favour of the S. applicant.”
Ld. Counsel for appellant bank submits that bank has already filed the necessary documents along with reply and the same are to be considered by the Ld. DRT for passing appropriate order. Therefore, Ld. Counsel submits that he would be satisfied if Ld. DRT is directed to dispose of the matter in a time bound manner by considering the documents already filed by it.
Ld. Counsel for respondent has no objection to the above request made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
-: 2 :-
Heard. Considering the above submission and keeping in mind the fact that huge amount of Rs.5.79 crores is involved in the present matter the Ld. DRT is directed to take up S.A. No. 143/2021 on the next date of hearing, and if it is not possible to take up the matter on the said date for any reason, then let it be taken up immediately thereafter and be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
With the above direction, the present application stands disposed of.
File be consigned to record.
(CHAIRPERSON)
N
Union Bank of India
Mansi Gupta
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
