The DRT allowed an appeal against the Registrar declining a Misc. Application. The court directed the Registrar to explain jurisdiction over stay orders before a final decision on the challenge to DRAT observations.
Recovery Certificate No. 223/2019 stayed; Misc. Application listed on 03.09.2025; Registry directed to provide explanation.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Supp. Item No.01
Case No. CA/1/2025
SAMEER AGARWAL & ORS. VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA
Date: 26.08.2025
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present:
Shri Kailash Tailor along with Sh. Raju Yadav, Counsel for the applicant
This Chamber appeal is filed by Sh. Sameer Agarwal and others against the order dted 22.08.2025 passed in MA Dy. no. 1717/2025. Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter was lastly listed on 21.08.2025 when the date 22.08.2025 was given.
The Registrar has declined the Misc. Application under rule 5(4) of DRT Procedure Rules, 1993. To start with, Advocate points out that it is an administrative functioning of the Registrar and the order cannot be passed by making it “Court of Registrar”. The administrative functioning and quasi judicial function of Registrar are different by putting Court of Registrar words assuming the judicial rule in declining the application should not be permitted.
He points out to the beginning para of last page “but none of these orders relevant has been granted by the nullifying the orders of Recovery Officer or stay order granted in judicial proceedings of Recovery Officers under Section 7(2) of RDB Act, 1993.”
He submits that the Registrar has no business to make such observations, he is trying to overtake the functioning of the Tribunal by passing such orders. He further points out that he had removed all the objections and defects and had submitted two orders for listing of his Misc. application. He submits that the on 14.08.2025, the Assistant Registrar as ‘Registrar I/C’ passed an order wherein it is noted that that order dated 21.01.2021 of Hon’ble DRT-2, Delhi is set aside by Hon’ble DRAT Mumbai vide order dated 29.04.2024 with the observations made therein.
The counsel further pleads that there is no claim in the orders as who has given orders to him to be placed on record as it was not
Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
submitted by him. He further alleges this act of Assistant Registrar is pre judicial to his pleadings and prayers. No documents can be placed in record except what is placed by parties.
The counsel raised a very vital question about functioning related to the registration of the pleadings by stating that it is the duty of the Registrar to look into only papers pleaded before him and nothing can be transported into the same without any rhyme and reason. The Tribunal is also at loss to see such an order because orders of Hon’ble DRAT are appealable before the Hon’ble High Court and then Hon’ble Supreme Court and nothing about that is mentioned.
The declining and the registration of Misc. application is nothing, but to deprive Misc. Applicant of its valuable rights. The counsel further submits that the orders placed by him before the Registrar have not been dealt with the specially orders passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Zakir Ali Rana vs EdelWeiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited wherein in the power of the Tribunal to entertain the application under Section 7(2) of RDB Act, 1993 has been duly observed and accepted by the Hon’ble High Court.
In view of the orders passed by Registrar and Assistant Registrar, they are exceeding their jurisdiction by passing orders dated 14.08.2025 & 18.08.2025 and consequently, it is all those orders are not acceptable along with the order under challenged dated 22.08.2025, they owe an explanation to this Tribunal and accordingly, will submit the detailed explanation that as to how the order of Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai crept into the proceedings.
Let them show cause that why an appropriate disciplinary action be not taken for relying upon an extraneous document not placed by the applicant/ party herein.
In view of the above circumstances, this Chamber Appeal stands allowed and at this stage counsel for the applicant submits that this Chamber Appeal was got also listed with great difficulty and the Misc. application had already been delayed which is facilitating
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
by Recovery Officer to proceed and take possession of the property.
In view of this recovery proceeding in Recovery Certificate No. 223/2019 stands stayed till the Misc. Application is restored and heard by the Tribunal.
Let the Misc. Application list before the Tribunal on 03.09.2025.
Copy of the order be given to Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Recovery Officer.
DASTI
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Registrar of DRT has jurisdiction to pass orders on pending applications or stay recovery proceedings without court order.
Whether disciplinary action is warranted against the Registrar for exceeding jurisdiction and relying on extraneous documents.
Whether the Misc. Application should be restored and recovery proceedings stayed pending its hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sameer Agarwal & ORS.
Union Bank of India
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
