Disposed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.

DRAT2 Sept 2022REGULAR APPEAL/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application pending an appeal against a regularisation, the tribunal restrained the Recovery Officer from insisting on filing an affidavit of satisfaction and calculation sheet of recovery until the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Recovery Officer not to insist on filing affidavit of satisfaction and calculation sheet of recovery until the next date of hearing.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Appeal No. 108/2022 IN Appeal No. 13/2018 Arising out of RC No. 55/2009 (DRT-II, Delhi)

¶3

Punjab & Sind Bank Vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.

¶4

02.09.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶5

Present: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Ld. counsel for appellant

¶6

Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Ld. Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Ld. counsel for respondent no.1

¶7

This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶8

Let notice be issued to all respondents other than respondent no.1 for the next date.

¶9

List on 23.11.2022 for further proceedings.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for interim relief, i.e. stay of proceedings before the learned Recovery Officer. He states that in the R.C. proceedings the Recovery Officer is insisting upon filing affidavit of satisfaction along with calculation sheet of recovery as per the modified R.C. issued by the learned Presiding Officer and the matter is now listed before him on 03.09.2022. The learned counsel states that he had informed and requested the learned Recovery Officer not to insist upon the above direction for the reason that appeal is pending before DRAT and judicial propriety demands that he should not proceed further with the R.C. The learned Recovery Officer has, however rejected his submission, stating that no stay order has been passed by the DRAT. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for issuance of restraint order.

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other hand, objects to the granting of any interim relief and states that the learned DRT has rightly decided the O.A. and, therefore, no direction needs to be issued to the Recovery Officer.

¶12

Learned counsel for appellant states at bar that even the bank is not going to take any action against the respondents so long as this appeal is pending before this Tribunal.

¶13

-: 2 :-

¶14

In view of above, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the Recovery Officer not to insist that the bank should file affidavit of satisfaction and calculation sheet of recovery as per the modified R.C. till the next date of hearing before this Tribunal.

¶15

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶16

-pk

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Goodluck Carbon Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Uco Bank and Ors.

Masroor Ahmed versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

M/S Vats Energy and Another versus Allahabad Bank and Another

Ms Satlaj Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

Oxyzo Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. versus Shailender Singh Gauchwal

Edelweiss Arc Ltd. versus Manish Sharma ANd Ors.