Manoj S.R v. E NIDHI GUPTA

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate f ocate for the respondent. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition ition has been filed alleging violation o tion of order dated 22.9.2025 (An 5 (Annexure P-2) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP WP-12956-2022 titled as “M/s Satguru F uru Foundation (Regd.) and anothe another vs. Canara Bank and another”, w , whereby the petition was dispo disposed of with the following observation tions :- “xxx xxx

5. The petitioners a ers are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory re ry remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT an and thereafter, before DRAT. In case the petitioners p ers prefer an application under Section 17 of SARFAES AESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along ong with copy of this order, the same shall be consider idered and decided on its own VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-6280-2025 (O & M) 2 merits, without being eing dismissed on limitation alone.

6. Interim relief, i f, if granted, in the present petition, shall continu ntinue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question stion of interim relief, provided the petitioners approa proach DRT within 30 days, failing which, the interi nterim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that i at if, petitioners approach the Tribunal within the p e prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall all not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while decidin ciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to to the petitioners. We further make it clear that the the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim reli relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being ing influenced by the fact of petitioner, having appr approached this Court or this Court having passed the d the present order. xxx” Learned counsel for the p the petitioner submits that in compliance liance of the aforesaid order, the peti e petitioner had duly approached the Debts R ebts Recovery Tribunal within the st the stipulated period of 30 days by filing an ling an application under Section 17 o n 17 of the SARFAESI Act along with an app an application seeking interim relief. I elief. It is submitted that both the main appli application as well as the application lication for interim relief are still pending ad unal. ing adjudication before the Tribunal. It is further contended by d by learned counsel for the petitioner ioner that despite repeated requests quests made on behalf of the petitioner, ioner, the Debts Recovery Tribunal ha nal has not yet passed any order on the ap he application seeking interim pro m protection. Learned counsel submits th its that during the pendency of t of the said proceedings, the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-6280-2025 (O & M) 3 respondent ndents proceeded to issue sale notices notices (Annexures P-3 to P-5) in respect of t ct of the property in question, alleged llegedly in disregard to the spirit of the order e order passed by the writ Court. On the other hand, learned co ned counsel appearing on behalf of the respo e respondents has vehemently oppose pposed the submissions made by learned cou ed counsel for the petitioner and subm d submits that the sale notices in question p tion pertain to another property m erty mortgaged by M/s Aasra Foundation dation and not to the property form y forming subject matter of the present disp nt dispute. At this stage, learned counsel ounsel for the petitioner submits that the pr the principal grievance raised before before the writ Court itself was with regard regard to attempts being made by e by M/s Aasra Foundation to alienate or ate or dispose of unpartitioned prop d property and that is why the petitioners ioners had been relegated to avail the ail the remedy before the Debts Recovery T very Tribunal. Learned counsel for the resp e respondents, however, submits that the imp the impugned sale notices (Annexures xures P-3 to P-5) have ultimately not fructifi ructified and the auction proceedings edings have failed on account of absence of nce of bidders. The said factual po ual position is not disputed by learned cou ed counsel for the petitioner. This Court has considered t ered the submissions made by learned cou ed counsel for the parties and perused rused the record. A perusal of the order dated dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Division B sion Bench shows that the writ Court h ourt had relegated the petitioners to avail the ail the statutory remedy before the De the Debts Recovery Tribunal and VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-6280-2025 (O & M) 4 had furthe further observed that the request f uest for interim relief shall be considered idered by the Tribunal on its own mer n merits. The issue as to whether the sale no ale notices pertain to the same proper property or to another mortgaged property in erty involves disputed questions which which are already subject matter of proceedi oceedings before the competent Tribun Tribunal. It is also not disputed that the hat the sale notices impugned in the presen present contempt proceedings have have not culminated into any successful essful auction sale, as admittedly no ly no bidders participated in the auction pro on proceedings. In the aforesaid circumstanc mstances, this Court is of the considered idered opinion that no case of wilful or ilful or deliberate disobedience of the order order passed by the writ Court ourt is made out warranting continuatio nuation of the present contempt proc pt proceedings. The parties shall remain at l in at liberty to pursue their respective tive remedies before the Debts Recovery T th law. very Tribunal in accordance with law. Accordingly, finding no furthe further direction necessary to be passed in th ed in the present contempt petition, the on, the same is disposed of. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 May 11, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document