Dismissed

Ms Dpd and Sons v. Punjab National Bank

DRT4 Aug 2026SA/289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application to condone the 155-day delay in filing a Single Appeal. The court found the appeal time-barred as the applicants admitted knowing of the property sale on 20.03.2025 but filed the appeal on 30.08.2025 without sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Single Appeal dismissed; pending IAs disposed of.

Ms Dpd and Sons versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.289/2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/289/2025 MS DPD AND SONS VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

¶4

04.08.2026

¶5

Supplementary Item No.2

¶6

Argued by: Mr. Rohit Suri, Counsel for the Applicants. Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶7

This order will dispose of the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 155 days in filing the present SA. By this very order I intend to dispose of the Application filed by the Bank for dismissal of the SA.

¶8

Applicants in the Application have alleged that on 20.03.2025, they moved an application under RTI Act seeking information regarding the auction of the property. However, they did not receive any response from the Bank. Again, they filed an appeal on 29.04.2025 before the First Appellate Authority. However, no information was received from the Appellate Authority. On 08.07.2025, Applicants through their Counsel sent Legal Notice to the bank to supply the information regarding the auction of the property. On 30.07.2025, they received reply from the Counsel of the Bank, which stated that the property had been sold for Rs.20,80,600/-. In reply, it was also stated that the property had been purchased by Ms. Kashish Jaitley, the daughter of Mr. Rajnish Sharma, Resident of Ferozepur, Punjab. Applicants filed the present SA on 30.08.2025. Accordingly, there was no delay in filing the SA. It is stated that the Application be allowed. In the alternative, the delay of 155 days in filing the SA be condoned.

¶9

¶10

SA No.289/2025

¶11

In reply to the Application filed by the Applicants, Bank has alleged that the Applicants themselves in para No.10 of the SA have alleged that on 20.03.2025, they obtained the accounts statement from where they came to know that the property had been sold for Rs.20,80,600/-. Accordingly, Applicants had the knowledge on 20.03.2025 itself that their property had been sold. Further, the Bank had taken the physical possession of the property. The Bank has sold the property and delivered the documents of title to the auction purchaser on 18.02.2025. This SA is time barred and the same be dismissed.

¶12

Mr. Rohit Suri, Counsel for the Applicant has argued that the Applicants were not served with the notices under Section 13(2), 13(4) and the auction notices. The Bank sold the property in a clandestine manner. The Applicants had filed the application under RTI. However, PIO failed to supply the information. Applicants had also appealed before the First Appellate Authority. However, no information was supplied to them. Ultimately, Applicants sent the Legal Notice to the Bank, and in reply to the Legal Notice, they were informed that the property had been sold. The Applicants had information of auction on 30.07.2025. On 30.08.2025, they filed the present SA which is within time.

¶13

Per contra, Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Counsel for the Bank, submits that the Applicants have themselves in para No.10 of the SA alleged that they had come to know of the sale of the property on 20.03.2025. Despite that they did not file the present SA till 30.08.2025. Accordingly, the SA is time barred.

¶14

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶15

Para No.10 of the SA reads as under:-

¶16

¶17

SA No.289/2025

¶18

Whereof the applicant on obtaining the accounts statement on 20.03.2025, the applicant realized that in the above mentioned account in the name of M/s DPD & Sons, the property of the applicant has been sold and an amount of Rs.20,80,600/- has been credited showing to be the sale proceeds of the property owned by the applicant.

¶19

In view of the above, the Applicants themselves admit that they had the knowledge of the auction on 20.03.2025. However, they did not file the SA till 30.08.2025. In the face of it, the SA is time-barred. Applicant have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, Application filed by the Applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and the SA is hereby also dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶21

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶22

Pronounced in open court Dated:04.08.2026 HARSH

¶23

Ms Dpd and Sons v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Dpd and Sons v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Walkers Village and Ors.

Mr. Pukhraj Gowardhanram Mandan versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

Mr Wahabkhan Yasinkhan Pathan and One versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

Shri Damjeet Singh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt. Bimla Devi

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Rajlakshmi Enterpriseand Ors.