AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.484/2026
The instant application is filed seeking waiver / exemption / reduction of pre-deposit on the ground that the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 is procedural in nature. To support this argument, the appellant has cited the order dated 17.04.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5290/2025 titled as M/s Sunshine Builders and Developers V. HDFC Bank Limited through the Branch Manager & others.
The impugned order appears to be procedural in nature without deciding substantive rights of the parties. Hence, the pre-deposit is not required. The application is allowed.
Misc. Appeal No.129/2026
Heard appellant on appeal. The appellant Vijay Kumar Verma filed S.A. No.100/2019 (TSA No.115/2024) titled as M/s Amit Packers V. State Bank of India & another and during the pendency of the said S.A. an application bearing I.A. No.48/2026 was filed on behalf of the appellant for seeking sine die adjournment of the said S.A.
The perusal of the record reflects that the respondent no.1 State Bank of India filed Misc. Crl. 27/2022 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the secured asset which was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2021 primarily on the ground that it was second application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
The appellant filed I.A. bearing No.48/2026 primarily on the ground that Misc. Crl. 27/2022 was dismissed by the CMM as such the TSA bearing No.115/2024 be adjourned sine die. The DRT, vide the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 has dismissed the said application. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.02.2026 is reproduced as under:-
6.The main contention of the Ld. counsel of the applicant is that the Ld. CMM has passed certain orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and on the basis of that order it is prayed that the proceedings of the present SA may be adjourned sine die. There is no provision under the SARFAESI Act/RDB Act to adjourn any case sine die. There is no such provision also in the CPC. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant cannot be allowed and the matter cannot be adjourned sine die. If the applicant is aggrieved by any action of the respondent bank, he may proceed with the SA and the SA will be decided as per evidence filed by both the parties.
In the light of the above, the IA no.48/2026 is liable to be dismissed.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that till the decision of FIR bearing No.829/2022 u/s 448 IPC PS. Bhawana pending in Rohini Court, the proceedings in the TSA be adjourned sine die. It is reflecting from the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by CMM that the said FIR was got registered on the basis of complaint by respondent State Bank of India against Vijay Verma who claims to be the owner of the appellant. DRT in the impugned order has considered that there is no provision under law to adjourn the case sine die and as such the prayer of the applicant was not allowed.
In the considered opinion of this Tribunal the DRT-II, Delhi has taken the correct view and rightly observed that the application cannot be allowed. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant are misconceived and cannot be accepted. Rather, the present appeal is gross abuse of process of law and is filed to delay the disposal of the TSA No.115/2024. Accordingly, after considering all facts, the present appeal is dismissed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- which can be recovered by the respondent bank as debt.