Mr. Apoorva Bhumesh, Ms. Madhavi Khare Mr. Ankur Kumar Sharma, Advs v. VISHNO DEV MISHRA ORS

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1563/2025 & CM APPL. 65887/2025 (Exemption) & CM APPL. 65888/2025 (Exemption) VIBHA GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Apoorva Bhumesh, Ms. Madhavi Khare & Mr. Ankur Kumar Sharma, Advs. versus VISHNO DEV MISHRA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Janendra Lal, Ms. Yashmin Tarapore & Mr. Jainendra, Advs. for R-1 & 2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R % 17.10.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeks the following prayers:- “i. Prosecute and punish the Respondents for committing willful and deliberate disobedience of Order dated 18.06.2018 and Order dated 23.08.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P (C) No. 6636/2018; AND ii. Issue any other Order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 12:41:55

3. Vide order dated 18.06.2018 in W.P.(C) 6636/2018, learned Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order: - “Mr.Lal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the physical possession has already been taken by the •Bank and the premises sealed in the afternoon, as of today. List on 27th June , 2018. till then, the Status-quo as of now shall be maintained by the parties.” 4. Subsequently, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by learned Division Bench vide order dated 23.08.2018 by observing as under:- “ During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent-bank has taken physical possession of property bearing number C-732, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. In these circumstances, counsel for the parties jointly state that the interim order passed by us may continue till the next date of hearing before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the securitization application filed by the petitioner. Thereupon, the Debts Recovery Tribunal would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders regarding continuation, modification or vacation of the stay order. We take the statement on record. We clarify that the stay order passed by this Court can be continued, modified or vacated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal after examining the facts and circumstances. 2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the parties that the next date of hearing before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is 31st August, 2018. Counsel for the petitioner states that they would be in difficulty and would request the Debts Recovery Tribunal for a short accommodation. 3. It is for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to fix a suitable and convenient date as per their calendar, albeit we will observe that the matter should be disposed of expeditiously and indulgence should not be granted to the parties as securitization application This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 12:41:55 should be decided and disposed of within a shortest possible time. 4. Counsel for the petitioner also seeks liberty to withdraw C.M. No.3372/2018 and states that a similar application would be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on or before 31st August, 2018. Accordingly, C.M. No.3372/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 5. Recording the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of without making observations and comments on merits. Dasti.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid orders have been violated by the respondent-Bank on account of the fact that the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-I in terms of aforesaid order has not either modified or vacated the aforesaid stay order and despite the same, respondent Nos.1 & 2 in wilful disobedience of the directions have initiated action. It is also the case of the petitioner the cause of action in the present is continuing and therefore, the petition is within the limitation period. 6. Perusal of the record, particularly from the list of dates mentioned in the present petition, would reflect that the post the passing of the aforesaid orders the subject property was auctioned in pursuance of sale notices put by the respondent-Bank. The relevant dates and events, as stated in the petition post the passing of the aforesaid orders, read as under: - This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 12:41:55 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 12:41:55 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 12:41:55 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 12:41:55

7. A perusal of the aforesaid sequence of events would reflect that even as per the case of the petitioner, the bank had issued various sale notices 2020 onwards and the petitioner had, thereafter, filed certain IAs challenging the same. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner has initiated all possible remedies with respect to the aforesaid action of the bank before the learned DRT. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid order was passed on 23.08.2018 and the alleged disobedience had taken place in 2020. The present petition is filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has taken recourse to all possible remedies as permissible in law with respect to action taken by the respondent-Bank. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/10/2025 at 12:41:55

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition under the Contempt of Court Act is not made out and the same is dismissed and disposed of. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith. AMIT SHARMA, J OCTOBER 17, 2025/nk