AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.427/2026 (application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant)
The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by DRT-I, Delhi in T.A. No.2164/2022, whereby application bearing No.864/2024 for seeking exemption from filing comprehensive affidavit of moveable and immovable properties in terms of order dated 29.07.2020 was dismissed.
The counsel for the appellant stated that there is no delay, if reckoned from the date of obtaining certified copy of the order, which was supplied on 25.02.2026.
After considering all the facts and particularly the reason mentioned in the application, the delay, if any, in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
Misc. Appeal (EDRAT) No.542/2026
Issue notice of the appeal to respondent no.1. Mr. Pradeep Dhaka, Advocate, appearing for respondent no.1 accepts notice.
Heard on the appeal.
The O.A. bearing No.177/2020 titled as "State Bank of India v. Ms.Priyanka Vats and another" was filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act for recovery of Rs.23,97,455/- along with interest. The DRT vide order dated 29.07.2020, as per prayer para 7(ii) of the O.A. directed the appellant to disclose on oath their personal immovable and movable assets before the next date of hearing. The appellant filed an application bearing no.864/2024 for seeking exemption from filing comprehensive affidavit of movable and immovable properties. The DRT dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 30.01.2026. The relevant portion of the order is re-produced as under:-
8.By way of the present application defendant no.2 is seeking exemption from filing comprehensive affidavit of movable and immovable properties. It has been argued by the defendant no.2 that defendant no.2 is a body corporate and engaged in the business of building/construction various residential/commercial projects and that it is practically infeasible and impossible for the defendant no.2 to find out precise details of the properties and assets owned by it and hence, it is unable to submit the details and defendant no.2 is neither necessary nor essential for proper adjudication of the present OA. On the other hand, it has been objected by the applicant bank.
9.Keeping in view aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the view that public money is involved in this matter, which as to be recovered by the applicant bank, therefore, defendants are hereby directed either to file comprehensive affidavit of movable and immovable properties or disclose the security asset by which loan amount could be recovered, in case of defendants will not pay the loan amount payable by the defendants.
The counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was neither the borrower nor the guarantor but was a third party with whom a tripartite agreement dated 15.06.2018 was executed by respondents 1 and 2. He further submitted that the appellant is ready to honour the terms and conditions on its part as per the tripartite agreement dated 15.06.2018 and further stated that at present the appellant is running various projects and it is not practically possible to furnish comprehensive affidavit of movable and immovable properties.
The counsel for the respondent State Bank of India argued that construction of Flat No.1911, 19th Floor, Tower-Turbo-1, Solitarian City, Ploat No.GH-B-1/2, Sector-25, Jaypee Greens Sports City, SDZ, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh has not been completed since 2018 and there is no possibility of recovery of the loan amount from the respondent no.2 and DRT to secure the recovery of the loan amount vide order dated 30.01.2026 has given appropriate direction to the appellant to file a comprehensive affidavit of movable and immovable properties.
This Tribunal is of opinion that it was not appropriate to ask the appellant to submit a comprehensive affidavit detailing movable and immovable properties or to disclose the security asset by which loan amount could be recovered. However the appellant to protect the interest of the respondent no.1 State Bank of India is directed to file an affidavit regarding current status of the project whereof the above said Flat is a part, before the concerned DRT within four weeks with copy to the respondent no.1. The Appeal with this direction stand disposed of.
File be consigned to record room.