Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Gaurang Kanth, JJ.
Dan Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3624 of 2023 & CM APPL. 14066-67 of 2023
Decided On : 22-03-2023
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Ms. Reena Jain Malhotra, Mr. Anand Aggarwal and Mr. Kunal Mital, Advocates , for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Kumar and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocates , for the Respondent.
Urgent hearing and prevention of precipitate action by the DRT.
Headnote:
DRT - Urgent Hearing - The court directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to take up the matter on an urgent basis and ordered that no precipitate action shall be taken till the matter is heard by the DRT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition since the DRT concerned was not functioning due to all DRT Presiding Officers attending a seminar, causing prejudice to the petitioner as an auction of his mortgaged property was scheduled for the day.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the DRT to take up the matter urgently and ordered that no precipitate action shall be taken till the matter is heard by the DRT.
Issues: Non-functioning of DRT due to seminar attendance, prejudice to the petitioner, notice of auction, and service of notice at the relevant address.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for urgent hearing and ordered to halt any precipitate action until the matter is heard by the DRT.
Final Decision: The petition, along with pending applications, is disposed-off in terms of the court's directions.
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. The petition has been filed since the DRT concerned is not functioning today on account of all DRT Presiding Officers having gone to attend a "National Seminar for Presiding Officers of DRT at the National Judicial Academy India, Bhopal" organised by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which understandably would be conscious that the non- functioning of all DRTs in the country, for at least two consecutive days, would be causing prejudice to many a party. One such party is the present petitioner, who says that auction apropos his mortgaged property is scheduled for today and if the auction goes through without his case being heard on merits, the petitioner may be irreparably prejudiced and he may become remediless. His application cannot be taken up today by the DRT for the aforesaid reason. He contends that the auction cannot proceed without prior clear notice of 15 days, which was not accorded to him. Furthermore, notice has admittedly been sought to be served upon the petitioner, at an address which is no more relevant because physical possession of the said property, his former residential address, had already been taken by the respondent-bank. Therefore, notice ought to have been served upon him at the address notified to the bank in proceedings pending before the DRT.
3. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the parties will request the DRT concerned to take up the matter on an urgent basis preferably this week itself.
4. No precipitate action shall be taken till the matter is heard by the DRT. Bids, if any, received in the course of this day shall not be acted upon till further orders of the DRT.
5. The petition, along with pending applications, is disposed-off in terms of the above.
