Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 07 DRAT CK 1824

Shri Mukesh & Ors. vs Punjab National Bank

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 6 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Chairperson
CASE NUMBER
Misc. Case No.68/2020 In Misc. Appeal No.528/2017 Arising out of SA No.342/2013 (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

6 paragraphs · 290 words

Misc. Application No.68/2020 (application for restoration of appeal)

1.

The instant application is filed for restoration of the Misc. Appeal bearing no.528/2017 which was dismissed on 06.10.2020 as infructuous on the submission made by the counsel for the respondent that the main S.A. was dismissed by the DRT for non-prosecution/in default. For the reason stated in the application, the Misc. Appeal No.528/2017 is restored to its original number. The application is accordingly allowed.

Misc. Appeal No.528/2017

2.

Sh. Anand Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant stated that appellant no.3 expired. The appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 18.11.2017 whereby respondent Punjab National Bank and the Court Receiver were restrained from taking physical possession of the property covered under the lease deed dated 30.05.2010 executed between the applicant no.2 before DRT and Punjab National Bank, Nangloi Branch, Delhi and it was further made clear that the interim order was restricted only in respect of 13.40 sq.yds. situated in Khasra no.41/11/1 and 41/10/2, situated in the Village of Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari), abadi known as A-Block, Shish Mahal Enclave, Prem Nagar-III, Delhi – 110 086.

3.

Sh. S.K. Tanwar, Advocate for respondent on instruction stated that till the disposal of the S.A. bearing no.342/2013 the respondent shall not take any coercive action in respect of the entire subject property.

4.

On the submission made by Sh. S.K. Tanwar, Advocate for the respondent the present appeal does not require any further adjudication and it is accordingly disposed of. It is also appearing that the S.A. No.342/2013 was filed before DRT-I, Delhi (now transferred to DRT-II, Delhi) in the year 2012. As such, DRT-II, Delhi is requested to make every possible endeavour for early disposal of the S.A. without any further delay.