Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 07 DRAT CK 1957

Indian Bank vs Khukhrain Builders & Ors.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 15 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J
CASE NUMBER
Misc. Appeal No.202/2026 (Arising out of SA No.383/2024 (DRT-I, Delhi))

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 343 words
1.

The respondent no.1 filed S.A. bearing No. 383/2024 titled as Khukhrain Builders v. Indian Bank which is stated to be pending before the DRT-I, Delhi.

2.

The respondent no.1 filed amendment application bearing I.A. No. 1004/2026 for making certain amendment in the Securitization Application. It was stated in the application that the proposed amendment shall not cause any prejudice to the opposite parties. The I.A. bearing No. 1004/2026 was allowed vide impugned order dated 29.05.2026.

3.

The DRT-I, Delhi in impugned order dated 29.05.2026 observed that the amendments are formal in nature and no prejudice shall be caused to the appellant bank. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.05.2026 filed the present appeal.

4.

Ms. Seema Gupta, Counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent no.1 by way of proposed amendment wants to change the nature of pleadings and also seeking withdrawal of the admission regarding the creation of mortgage in respect of the subject property in favour of the appellant.

5.

Sh. Vivek Singh, Counsel for the respondent no.1 on advance notice appeared and argued that the proposed amendments shall not change the nature of pleadings and all the issues are still to be decided by the DRT-I, Delhi in trial of S.A. bearing No. 383/2024.

6.

The arguments advanced by Ms. Seema Gupta, Counsel for the appellant that the proposed amendment shall change the nature of the pleadings and also tantamount to the withdrawal of the admission are not appearing to be convenience at this stage.

7.

DRT-I, Delhi in the impugned order dated 29.05.2026 has clearly observed that the proposed amendment are formal in nature and shall not change the nature of the pleadings. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence dismissed.

8.

However, the appellant bank shall be at liberty to take all the pleas and contentions available to the appellant in accordance with law before the DRT-I, Delhi during the trial of S.A. bearing No. 383/2024 in rebuttal of the amendment as sought by respondent no.1 and allowed vide impugned order dated 29.05.2026.