Rani Gupta vs Corporation Bank

The applicant Rani Gupta filed S.A. bearing T.S.A No.48/2022 titled as Rani Gupta V Corporation Bank which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. DRT-I, Delhi vide proceeding dated 02.06.2026 has recused himself from the trial of S.A. bearing T.S.A No.48/2022 and made a request to this Tribunal to transfer the said S.A. to any other DRT.

The perusal of proceedings dated 02.06.2026 reflects that Durgadutt Gupta who is the husband of Rani Gupta appeared through VC and made uncalled remarks and also used unparliamentary language against the counsel for the respondent no.1 and also stated to the Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi that the Tribunal decide the matter only in favour of the financial institutions. 3.Sh. Samarendra Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.1 also submitted before DRT-I, Delhi that Durgadutt Gupta has used abusive language against him and requested DRT-I, Delhi to refer the matter to this Tribunal for initiating appropriate action against Durgadutt Gupta.

The notices were ordered to be issued to Rani Gupta and Durgadutt Gupta and other concerned parties. The applicant Rani Gupta has not appeared today and stated to be in hospital due to illness. Durgadutt Gupta who is the husband of Rani Gupta appeared on behalf of the applicant Rani Gupta. He stated that CCTV recording of proceeding dated 02.06.2026 be called and on that day, he did not use the unparliamentary language as mentioned in the proceeding dated 02.06.2026.

Sh. Samarendra Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.1/ Corporation Bank stated that this Tribunal may pass any appropriate order under the given facts and circumstances of the case.

The original record of S.A. No.310/2015 (T.S.A. No.48/2022) is called and perused. The perusal of judicial record reflects that the applicant Rani Gupta has not executed any authority letter in favour of Durgadutt Gupta to appear on her behalf. It is not understandable why Durgadutt Gupta has appeared on behalf of Rani Gupta. It is also pertinent to mention that Durgadutt Gupta is respondent no.2 being its proprietor.

There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of facts as mentioned in proceedings dated 02.06.2026 by DRT-I, Delhi. Durgadutt Gupta who is the proprietor of respondent no.2 and has appeared on behalf of applicant Rani Gupta without any authority or permission and even he himself is a respondent, is strongly warned to take care of his behaviour towards the opposite counsel as well as towards the Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi in future. Keeping in view his age and other facts, this Tribunal, at present, is not contemplating to initiate any action against Durgadutt Gupta. It is expected that he will discipline the behaviour which should be in consonance with the decorum and dignity of the judicial system.

In view of the submissions made by DRT-I, Delhi, the S.A. bearing T.S.A No.48/2022 is ordered to be withdrawn from DRT-I, Delhi and is assigned to DRT-II, Delhi for disposal in accordance with law.

The judicial record of T.S.A bearing No.48/2022 be returned back to DRT-I, Delhi. The copy of this order be sent to DRT-I, Delhi and DRT-II, Delhi for information and compliance.

The parties are directed to appear on 12.08.2026 before DRT-II, Delhi for further directions.