AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent no.1 RekhaSaxena filed S.A. bearing no.228/2026 tilted as RekhaSaxena V Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Limited (ACRE) and another before DRT, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") which is still pending disposal before DRT. S.A. bearing No.228/2026 was listed on 13.03.2026 and on that day DRT passed the following order which is under challenge in the present appeal:
In this matter, the connected Securitization Application no.414/2025 is listed and counsel for the applicant submits that the said Securitization Application was allowed however, the bank has gone in appeal.
In view of the above, if the party once gone in appeal, they should restrain their hands from further proceedings till the orders of the Hon'ble DRAT comes. In case, Hon'ble DRAT come to conclusion to dismiss the appeal, then what will be the fate of the actions taken by the bank and they have to take fresh actions.
Issue notices to the respondents by Dasti as well as speed post along with complete paper book and to be served by the applicant. Notice to be collected by the applicant.
The respondent bank is directed to file reply showing cause as to why SA should not be allowed within 30 days along with all the loan documents including CERSAI Report, Assignment Deed (if any) along with complete details of transaction sanction letter, legal report, all valuation report(s) along with photographs, mortgage documents and complete correspondence with complete statement of account failing which it shall be presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter.
After the reply is filed the applicant may file rejoinder to avert the facts narrated in the reply. STATUS QUO to be maintained.
Re-notify the matter on 15.05.2026 for arguments.
DRT in the order dated 13.03.2026 has observed that the connected S.A. bearing No.414/2025 was allowed and the appellant has already filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The counsel for the appellant stated that the DRT has observed that 'if the parties once prefer an appeal, then the said party should restrain their hands from further proceedings till appropriate order is passed by the DRAT'. It was further stated that DRT issued notice to respondents and the appellant was directed to file reply. The DRT has also directed the appellant to maintain the status quo. The counsel for the appellant argued that DRT without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant has passed the order to maintain the status quo which is against the principles of natural justice. The appellant was not given any opportunity to file reply particularly when another S.A. bearing No.414/2025 was already filed by the respondent and already decided by DRT.
It is reflecting from the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 that DRT without assigning any reason and without considering reply to be filed on behalf of the appellant has passed the order for maintenance of the status quo. DRT should have given an opportunity to the appellant for the filing of the reply and after hearing both the parties should have decided whether or not an order for maintenance of the status quo should be passed particularly when the appellant and the respondent were already under litigation. The impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The impugned order cannot be legally sustained and accordingly impugned order dated 13.03.2026 is set aside. DRT is directed to decide the issue of maintenance of the status quo after affording opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties including considering reply if any to be filed on behalf of the appellant along with other documents as detailed in the order dated 13.03.2026. The appeal is decided accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to DRT, Jaipur for information and compliance.