Restaurants Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Shri Ujjwal Gupta v. Debts Recovery Tribunal

the petitioner that being aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2023, the present petitioner had filed an appeal before the DRAT. However, in order to frustrate the appeal it is alleged that the Presiding Officer of DRT in connivance with the borrower passed the final order on S.A.No.748 of 2022 on 17.10.2023 "that is two days prior to the already date fixed i.e. 19.11.2023".

10. The petitioner assailed the order dated 25.09.2023 by filing an appeal before DRAT bearing No.1296 of 2023 and the Bank filed an appeal bearing No.1302 of 2023 while the appeals were pending to the final order dated 17.10.2023 was passed and as a consequence the above appeals were rendered infrucous.

11. It is in this factual backdrop that the petitioner thereafter filed the instant petition on 10.03.2025 whereby the order dated 17.10.2023 is under challenge with the further prayer that the Bank may be directed to issue the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner.

12. Apparently, what the record indicates is that the petitioner has levelled allegations against the Presiding Officer of the DRT and another Advocate who have been impleaded as respondents no.4 and 5 in the instant petition.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of 4 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 connivance of the Presiding Officer with the borrower with the aid of the respondent no.5. The order dated 17.10.2023 was passed despite the fact that the case was listed for delivery of orders on

19.10.2023.

14. It is urged that the DRT did not have the jurisdiction to pass the orders two days prior to the date when it was fixed for delivery of orders. It was also urged that the Presiding Officer with the aid of private respondent no.5 was involved in several matters which had raised eyebrows and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had taken note of the serious lapses and also got a C.B.I. inquiry instituted. It is thus submitted that the order dated 17.10.2023 is per se without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed instant writ proceedings.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in IDBI Bank Ltd Vs. Ramswaroop Dalia and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2878 and Sanjay Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4589 as well as Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Achanera & another Vs. Vinod Kumar (2008) 2 SCC 588.

16. Shri S.S.Rajawat, learned counsel appearing for the Bank states that the instant petition is not maintainable as against the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 the respondent no.2 has already filed an appeal before the DRAT which is engaging the attention and in such circumstances the instant petition may not be entertained.

17. Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 borrower submits that as far as the issue relating to setting aside the order dated 17.10.2023 is concerned, on the premise that the same was an outcome of the connivance may not be quite correct; inasmuch as in one of the matters relating to the same Presiding Officer of DRT, Lucknow a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court challenging an order passed by the DRT whichwas quashed by the High Court on the basis of the previous order, noticing doubts regarding the authenticity of the order relating to the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the DRT. 5 A227 No. 1463 of 2025

18. It is stated that the Apex Court clearly declined to accept the submission that merely because the Presiding Officer of the DRT had doubtful functional credibility, this cannot be a ground to quash each and every order passed by the said officer especially without hearing the respective parties. It is thus urged that the sole ground for assailing the order dated 17.10.2023 appears to be, doubtful conduct of the Presiding Officer of the DRT and coupled with the fact that the appeal of the Bank is already engaging the attention of the DRT, in such circumstances the instant petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

19. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the material on record.

20. At the outset, it may be noticed that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 30.07.2025 had summoned the record of DRT, Lucknow relating to S.A. No.748 of 2022 under sealed cover and the said order is being reproduced hereinafter for ease of reference:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow is directed to remit the file of S.A. No.748 of 2022 under sealed cover for perusal of this Court.

3. Senior Registrar of this Court shall communicate this order to Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow for compliance.

4. List on 13.08.2025."

21. It is in view of the aforesaid that this Court had also perused the record as far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the allegation that the order dated 17.10.2023 has been passed with connivance as the said case was listed on

19.10.2023 for delivery of orders rather the order was passed on

17.10.2023 is concerned, the same is not very well established from the record.

22. The only document upon which the petitioner rely has been brought on record as annexure no.8 at running page 69 which 6 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 appears to be a down- loaded copy indicating the case status as well as the detail of the listing of the case tentatively. Pressing upon the same, it is sought to be argued that since the downloaded case status report indicated the next date of listing as 19.10.2023 for the purposes of judgment which actually was delivered on 17.10.2023, hence the apprehension as expressed by the petitioner gains credence.

23. This Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission for more than one reason. Apparently, the petitioner is merely an auction purchaser who had put in his highest bid. He has deposited the entire sum with the Bank but admittedly the sale certificate has yet not been issued and in this view of the matter the status of the petitioner does not get any stronger for the reason that all the rights that can be conveyed to the petitioner are from the Bank. The petitioner individually does not have a right to challenge the SARFEASI proceedings for the reason that his application for impleadment had already been rejected by the DRT Lucknow vide order dated

25.09.2023.

24. The said order dated 25.09.2023 admittedly was not reversed or set aside. Since the application for impleadment moved by the petitioner had been dismissed on 25.09.2023 and from that point onwards till 17.10.2023 when the final order was passed by the DRT, the petitioner was a stranger; inasmuch as he was not entitled to be heard or participate in the proceedings and even though the judgment may have been passed on 17.10.2023 instead of 19.10.2023 but the fact remains that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party as his application for impleadment had been rejected. It would have been a different context, if after the rejection of the impleadment there would have been an order passed by any superior authority or any other application filed by the petitioner which may have remained pending before the DRT but that is not the case. Hence, upon dismissal of the application for impleadment unless and until the said order was set aside by competent authority or court, the petitioner remained a stranger to the proceedings and even if the order was passed two days in advance than the date notified for pronouncing 7 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 the judgment, yet the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. Thus, for the said reason this Court does not find that merely because the order was passed two days in advance by the Presiding Officer of the DRT Lucknow, the petitioner does not have a right to assail the final order dated 17.10.2023 directly in the instant writ petition.

25. The other reason for not entertaining this petition is, that the petitioner does not have any individual right in the property or the proceedings and all they can claim is on the basis of the Bank. Since their principal i.e. Bank has already filed an appeal before the DRT assailing the final order dated 17.10.2023, hence the petitioner individually cannot challenge the same order before the writ court, if at all any cause is available. However, this is of the view that the instant petition is not maintainable especially when the Bank has already challenged the order dated 17.10.2023 by filing an appeal before the DRAT.

26. Learned counsel the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that he had earlier filed his appeal bearing No.1493 of 2023 which was withdrawn and thereafter the instant petition was filed, hence he may not be non suited on this ground by the DRAT. In this regard it would suffice to observe that the petitioner would be at liberty of taking recourse as may be available to him in law and if any such application/appeal is filed before the DRAT, it will be for the DRAT to consider and pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law.

27. In so far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it would be relevant to state that in the case of Sanjay Sharma (supra), the issue before the Apex Court was different which can be seen from the paragraph 11 and 12 of the said report. As far as the decision of IDBI Bank Ltd (supra) is concerned, again the facts are quite different for the reason that in the said case the Bank after having issued the sale certificate had unilaterally cancelled the same which was found by the Apex Court to be bad in the eyes of law. However, in the instant case, first and foremost the 8 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 sale certificate has not been issued and as far as the auction is concerned, the same had been set aside by the DRT by the judicial order which is under challenge before the DRAT, hence the said decision do not come to the aid of the petitioner for the purposes of maintaining the instant petition at the behest of auction purchaser.

28. This Court further notices that the record of the DRT, Lucknow had been called by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the same is before this Court since 30.07.2025, hence the Senior Registrar of this is directed to ensure that the record of the DRT relating to S.A.No.748 of 2022 is returned to the DRT and the DRAT may also expedite the hearing of the appeal which is pending before it.

29. It is further clarified that this Court while dismissing the aforesaid petition has not expressed any opinion on merits of the order dated

17.10.2023 which needless to say is that consideration who would decide the appeal on its own merits.

30. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. September 3, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.)

the petitioner that being aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2023, the present petitioner had filed an appeal before the DRAT. However, in order to frustrate the appeal it is alleged that the Presiding Officer of DRT in connivance with the borrower passed the final order on S.A.No.748 of 2022 on 17.10.2023 "that is two days prior to the already date fixed i.e. 19.11.2023".

10. The petitioner assailed the order dated 25.09.2023 by filing an appeal before DRAT bearing No.1296 of 2023 and the Bank filed an appeal bearing No.1302 of 2023 while the appeals were pending to the final order dated 17.10.2023 was passed and as a consequence the above appeals were rendered infrucous.

11. It is in this factual backdrop that the petitioner thereafter filed the instant petition on 10.03.2025 whereby the order dated 17.10.2023 is under challenge with the further prayer that the Bank may be directed to issue the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner.

12. Apparently, what the record indicates is that the petitioner has levelled allegations against the Presiding Officer of the DRT and another Advocate who have been impleaded as respondents no.4 and 5 in the instant petition.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of 4 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 connivance of the Presiding Officer with the borrower with the aid of the respondent no.5. The order dated 17.10.2023 was passed despite the fact that the case was listed for delivery of orders on

19.10.2023.

14. It is urged that the DRT did not have the jurisdiction to pass the orders two days prior to the date when it was fixed for delivery of orders. It was also urged that the Presiding Officer with the aid of private respondent no.5 was involved in several matters which had raised eyebrows and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had taken note of the serious lapses and also got a C.B.I. inquiry instituted. It is thus submitted that the order dated 17.10.2023 is per se without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed instant writ proceedings.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in IDBI Bank Ltd Vs. Ramswaroop Dalia and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2878 and Sanjay Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4589 as well as Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Achanera & another Vs. Vinod Kumar (2008) 2 SCC 588.

16. Shri S.S.Rajawat, learned counsel appearing for the Bank states that the instant petition is not maintainable as against the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 the respondent no.2 has already filed an appeal before the DRAT which is engaging the attention and in such circumstances the instant petition may not be entertained.

17. Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 borrower submits that as far as the issue relating to setting aside the order dated 17.10.2023 is concerned, on the premise that the same was an outcome of the connivance may not be quite correct; inasmuch as in one of the matters relating to the same Presiding Officer of DRT, Lucknow a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court challenging an order passed by the DRT whichwas quashed by the High Court on the basis of the previous order, noticing doubts regarding the authenticity of the order relating to the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the DRT. 5 A227 No. 1463 of 2025

18. It is stated that the Apex Court clearly declined to accept the submission that merely because the Presiding Officer of the DRT had doubtful functional credibility, this cannot be a ground to quash each and every order passed by the said officer especially without hearing the respective parties. It is thus urged that the sole ground for assailing the order dated 17.10.2023 appears to be, doubtful conduct of the Presiding Officer of the DRT and coupled with the fact that the appeal of the Bank is already engaging the attention of the DRT, in such circumstances the instant petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

19. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the material on record.

20. At the outset, it may be noticed that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 30.07.2025 had summoned the record of DRT, Lucknow relating to S.A. No.748 of 2022 under sealed cover and the said order is being reproduced hereinafter for ease of reference:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow is directed to remit the file of S.A. No.748 of 2022 under sealed cover for perusal of this Court.

3. Senior Registrar of this Court shall communicate this order to Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow for compliance.

4. List on 13.08.2025."

21. It is in view of the aforesaid that this Court had also perused the record as far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the allegation that the order dated 17.10.2023 has been passed with connivance as the said case was listed on

19.10.2023 for delivery of orders rather the order was passed on

17.10.2023 is concerned, the same is not very well established from the record.

22. The only document upon which the petitioner rely has been brought on record as annexure no.8 at running page 69 which 6 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 appears to be a down- loaded copy indicating the case status as well as the detail of the listing of the case tentatively. Pressing upon the same, it is sought to be argued that since the downloaded case status report indicated the next date of listing as 19.10.2023 for the purposes of judgment which actually was delivered on 17.10.2023, hence the apprehension as expressed by the petitioner gains credence.

23. This Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission for more than one reason. Apparently, the petitioner is merely an auction purchaser who had put in his highest bid. He has deposited the entire sum with the Bank but admittedly the sale certificate has yet not been issued and in this view of the matter the status of the petitioner does not get any stronger for the reason that all the rights that can be conveyed to the petitioner are from the Bank. The petitioner individually does not have a right to challenge the SARFEASI proceedings for the reason that his application for impleadment had already been rejected by the DRT Lucknow vide order dated

25.09.2023.

24. The said order dated 25.09.2023 admittedly was not reversed or set aside. Since the application for impleadment moved by the petitioner had been dismissed on 25.09.2023 and from that point onwards till 17.10.2023 when the final order was passed by the DRT, the petitioner was a stranger; inasmuch as he was not entitled to be heard or participate in the proceedings and even though the judgment may have been passed on 17.10.2023 instead of 19.10.2023 but the fact remains that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party as his application for impleadment had been rejected. It would have been a different context, if after the rejection of the impleadment there would have been an order passed by any superior authority or any other application filed by the petitioner which may have remained pending before the DRT but that is not the case. Hence, upon dismissal of the application for impleadment unless and until the said order was set aside by competent authority or court, the petitioner remained a stranger to the proceedings and even if the order was passed two days in advance than the date notified for pronouncing 7 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 the judgment, yet the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. Thus, for the said reason this Court does not find that merely because the order was passed two days in advance by the Presiding Officer of the DRT Lucknow, the petitioner does not have a right to assail the final order dated 17.10.2023 directly in the instant writ petition.

25. The other reason for not entertaining this petition is, that the petitioner does not have any individual right in the property or the proceedings and all they can claim is on the basis of the Bank. Since their principal i.e. Bank has already filed an appeal before the DRT assailing the final order dated 17.10.2023, hence the petitioner individually cannot challenge the same order before the writ court, if at all any cause is available. However, this is of the view that the instant petition is not maintainable especially when the Bank has already challenged the order dated 17.10.2023 by filing an appeal before the DRAT.

26. Learned counsel the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that he had earlier filed his appeal bearing No.1493 of 2023 which was withdrawn and thereafter the instant petition was filed, hence he may not be non suited on this ground by the DRAT. In this regard it would suffice to observe that the petitioner would be at liberty of taking recourse as may be available to him in law and if any such application/appeal is filed before the DRAT, it will be for the DRAT to consider and pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law.

27. In so far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it would be relevant to state that in the case of Sanjay Sharma (supra), the issue before the Apex Court was different which can be seen from the paragraph 11 and 12 of the said report. As far as the decision of IDBI Bank Ltd (supra) is concerned, again the facts are quite different for the reason that in the said case the Bank after having issued the sale certificate had unilaterally cancelled the same which was found by the Apex Court to be bad in the eyes of law. However, in the instant case, first and foremost the 8 A227 No. 1463 of 2025 sale certificate has not been issued and as far as the auction is concerned, the same had been set aside by the DRT by the judicial order which is under challenge before the DRAT, hence the said decision do not come to the aid of the petitioner for the purposes of maintaining the instant petition at the behest of auction purchaser.

28. This Court further notices that the record of the DRT, Lucknow had been called by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the same is before this Court since 30.07.2025, hence the Senior Registrar of this is directed to ensure that the record of the DRT relating to S.A.No.748 of 2022 is returned to the DRT and the DRAT may also expedite the hearing of the appeal which is pending before it.

29. It is further clarified that this Court while dismissing the aforesaid petition has not expressed any opinion on merits of the order dated

17.10.2023 which needless to say is that consideration who would decide the appeal on its own merits.

30. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. September 3, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.)