AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.879/2025 (application for condonation of delay filed by appellant)
The instant application is filed on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. It is stated that the delay was caused due to unprecedented floods in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. After considering all facts, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
I.A. No.878.2025 (application for waiver of pre-deposit)
The appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit primarily on the ground that the impugned order is procedural in nature and does not fasten any liability upon the appellant. The impugned order appears to be procedural in nature. Hence, the condition of pre-deposit is dispensed with. Application is accordingly allowed.
Misc. Appeal No.183/2026
The appellant filed S.A. bearing no.29/2023 titled as M/s Peaks Auto Pvt. Ltd. V. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited before DRT-III, Delhi. DRT-III, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 dismissed the application bearing I.A. No.452/2025 filed by the appellant for seeking direction to the respondent to place on record certain documents which had not been placed despite order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the DRT-III, Delhi. DRT-II, Delhi vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025 dismissed that I.A. observing that the appellant had been filing repeated applications seeking the same relief despite direction as per order dated 20.09.2023 had already been complied with by the respondent. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 is reproduced as under:-
6.I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The order dated 20.09.2023 of this Tribunal required the Respondent Bank to place certain documents on record, which, upon examination of the case file, stand duly complied with. The record reveals that the relevant agreements, sanction letters, statutory notices, replies, possession proceedings, and other essential papers have already been filed and are accessible for the purpose of adjudication.
7.The Applicant's grievance is primarily premised on an assertion of incomplete compliance and alleged inconsistencies in figures at different stages of the recovery process. However, the documents necessary to address these issues are already part of the record. The question of figures and liability determination is a matter for final adjudication on merits and does not require fresh directions for documents production at this stage, particularly when the case is listed for final arguments.
8.It is also material to note that repeated applications seeking the same relief after compliance has been made serve only to protract proceedings, which runs contrary to the objectives of expeditious recovery under the applicable law. The stage of the proceedings and the availability of documents on record do not warrant any further directions in the nature sought.
9.In view of the above analysis, I.A. No.452/2025 is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
During the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant on instruction stated that the legible copies of the document which have been filed in terms of order dated 20.09.2023 has not been supplied to the appellant. To avoid further controversy between the parties, respondent is directed to supply the copies of the documents which were directed to be placed on record by the DRT in terms of the order dated 20.09.2023 to the appellant within two weeks from today.
The present appeal stands disposed of.