Smt Poonam Gupta v. Bank of India and 2 Ors.

M.A. No. 26/2022 In Appeal Dy. No. 279/2022 Date: 15.11.2022

Smt. Poonam Gupta Vs. Bank of India & Ors.

Present: Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, counsel for the appellant, Shri Arif Iqbal, counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri Raj Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the respondent-Auction Purchaser,

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The present misc. application being M.A. No. 26/2022 has been filed by the appellant praying to allow the same by recalling the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the DRAT, Delhi and to restore the Appeal Dy. No. 279/2022 to its original status.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that vide impugned order in the present appeal dated 04.06.2022, the DRT, Allahabad has dismissed the S.A. No. 161/2020, which was challenged before this Appellate Tribunal on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. It is further contended that vide order dated 22.07.2022, the waiver application was allowed by this Tribunal and the interim application was to be considered by the next date i.e. 22.08.2022. It is further contended that in the meantime, the ADM-III, Prayagraj had issued a notice dated 23.07.2022 directing the appellant to handover the physical possession of the property in question by 19.08.2022, therefore, the urgency application was filed by the appellant, which was taken on 29.08.2022 through video conferencing by the DRAT, Delhi, before whom the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that a minimum 10 days’ fresh notice will be served upon the appellant before taking physical possession of the property in question. Hence, the Hon’ble Chairperson, DRAT, Delhi did not pass any interim order, but

due to inadvertent mistake, it was mentioned that the appellant wants to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the DRT with a fresh S.A. as and when the notice is issued, whereas no such submission was made by the appellant for withdrawal of the appeal. It is also contended that since the learned counsel for the respondent-bank had contended that a minimum 10 days’ fresh notice will be given before taking physical possession, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant requested before the DRAT, Delhi for withdrawal of the urgency application and not the appeal.