The court clarified that there is no provision in the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act ousting the remedy of a civil suit by a defendant in a claim by the bank, and the proceedings under the Act should not be stayed by way of a civil proceeding instituted by a defendant before the civil court.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

"a. Quash all the proceedings apropos the property in question of the petitioner company viz. C-51, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi-110035, pending before the Ld. DRT-II, New Delhi in and emanating from O.A No. 677/2000 and O.A No. 88/2004 titled `Punjab & Sind Bank vs M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited & Ors.; and

b. Consequently, direct the respondent Bank to forthwith release and hand over the original title deed documents apropos the property in question viz. C-51, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi-110035 to the petitioner company, illegally and unjustifiably withheld by the respondent Bank, since the Year 1998; OR Alternately

c. Set aside the impugned orders dated: 07.02.2023 passed by the Ld. DRAT, New Delhi in Appeal No. 29/2022 and Appeal No. 36/2022 titled `M/s Rajdhani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors.' and consequently, direct the Recovery Officer in recovery proceedings in R.C. No. 378/2012 titled `Punjab & Sind Bank vs M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited & Ors.' to examine the petitioner company's application afresh on merits, filed vide Diary No.4191/2020 & 1649/2020; and"

2. The petitioner essentially prays that the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1, Punjab and Sind Bank (hereafter `PSB') against the petitioner being Original Application (O.A.) No.677/2000 and O.A. No.88/2004 captioned Punjab & Sind Bank v. M/s Delhi Automobiles Ltd. & Ors., filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereafter `RDB Act') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereafter `DRT') be set aside.

3. The petitioner company has been arrayed as respondent no.5 in the aforesaid action (Original Applications) instituted by PSB.

4. The petitioner states that it had also taken a loan against the property located at C-51, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi110035 (hereafter `the mortgaged property'). The same was the subject matter of another action^{1[O.A. No. 24/2004]} instituted by PSB under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of the amounts advanced.

5. It is the petitioner's case that PSB has been illegally withholding the title documents of the mortgaged property against loans advanced to M/s Delhi Automobiles Ltd., which are a subject matter of the proceedings in O.A. No.677/2000 and O.A. No.88/2004. The petitioner claims that it has neither stood as a guarantor for the financial facilities advanced to M/s Delhi Automobiles Ltd. nor has it furnished any collateral security for the same. The petitioner thus claims that it has been wrongly arrayed as a party to those proceedings.

6. The petitioner states that prior to the institution of the action by the PSB before the learned DRT, it filed a suit^{2[CS(OS) No. 2443/2000 captioned Rajdhani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.]} in this Court, inter alia, praying for a declaration that PSB is liable to return the title deed and the documents in respect of the mortgaged property. In addition, the petitioner also prayed that the Board Resolution, and other security documents be declared as forged and fabricated; consequently, the charge created on the mortgaged property on the basis of the aforesaid documents be declared as null and void.

7. PSB filed an application^{3[I.A No. 4439/2001 in CS (OS) No. 2443/2000]} seeking transfer of the said suit^{4[CS(OS) No. 2443/2000 captioned Rajdhani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.]} to the learned DRT, which was rejected by a judgment of this Court delivered on 08.08.2007. In view of the above, the suit preferred by the petitioner is continuing. This Court is informed that the same is at the stage of recording of evidence.

8. In the meanwhile, at the instance of the petitioner, the learned DRT, by an order dated 01.11.2010 stayed the proceedings in O.A. No. 677/2000, O.A. No. 88/2004 and O.A 24/2004, on the ground of, pendency of the said suit.

9. Th