W.P.(C)/14477/2026 of ARNAV COLONIZERS PVT. LTD. Vs M/S METALORE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

%

29.09.2026

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the interim order dated 25.08.2026, passed by the DRAT, Delhi in I.A. No. 1013/2026 filed by Respondent No.4 herein in Regular Appeal No. 8/2025, directing the Petitioner herein to deposit the original title documents of the property in question.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case as canvassed by the Petitioner, leading to the present Petition are as under: a. It is stated that Respondent No.1 took a loan of Rs.27.62 crores from Respondent No.4/Canara Bank (Bank). It is stated that

Respondent No.1 failed to adhere to the re-payment schedule and its account was declared as NPA. It is stated that the Bank initiated recovery proceedings in respect of the secured asset situated at Jaura Road, Village Morana Gaon, District Morena, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Subject Property’), and issued a possession notice dated 17.06.2017. Thereafter, the Bank issued an auction advertisement dated 20.09.2019, pursuant to which an e-auction was conducted on 21.10.2019. It is stated that the Petitioner participated in the e- auction and emerged as the highest bidder for the Subject Property and deposited 25% of the bid amount. b. It is stated that on 02.11.2019, Respondents No.1 to 3 filed S.A. No.51/2022 before DRT-II, Delhi, challenging the auction and the measures initiated by the Bank. It is stated that the Petitioner herein deposited the balance 75% of the bid amount on 27.01.2020 and a Sale Certificate dated 24.06.2020, registered on 24.11.2020 was issued by the Bank in favour of the Petitioner. c. It is stated that during the pendency of S.A. No.51/2022, the DRT, by order dated 03.02.2021, directed Respondent No.3, who is an intended purchaser of the property in question, to deposit the entire sale consideration within 30 days, failing which the Bank was at liberty to confirm the sale in favour of the previous auction purchaser. d. It is stated that after obtaining possession of the secured asset on 16.12.2021, the Petitioner sold portions of the Subject

Property to two persons, namely Ms. Sudha Sharma and Mr. Shyam Yadav, through registered Sale Deeds dated 25.04.2022, as there was no stay on the sale. e. It is stated that vide order dated 27.11.2024, the DRT set aside the auction sale in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that the entire sale consideration had been deposited beyond the statutory period of 90 days. The Tribunal consequently directed the Bank to re-auction the secured asset and forfeit 25% of the amount deposited by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner herein filed Regular Appeal No.8/2025 before the DRAT, Delhi. f. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the Bank issued letters dated 10.02.2025, 25.02.2025 and 11.03.2025, asking the Petitioner to comply with the order dated 27.11.2024. It is stated that the Petitioner filed an Application for early hearing before the DRAT which was dismissed vide Order dated 03.04.2025. However, the DRAT directed the Petitioner to return the original title documents to the Bank within one week and directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the Subject Property till the next date of hearing. g. It is stated that the Petitioner thereafter filed I.A. No.358/2025 on 02.05.2025, seeking recall/modification of the order dated 03.04.2025. In the meantime, Respondent No.4/Bank filed I.A. No.1013/2026 before the DRAT seeking urgent listing of the appeal. Pursuant thereto, the DRAT passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2026, directing the Petitioner to deposit the original title documents of the secured asset before the Tribunal in a sealed cover within two weeks from the said Order. h. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking stay of the impugned Order and exemption from depositing the original title documents during the pendency of Regular Appeal No.8/2025.

3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that it has already transferred portions of the property to third-party purchasers through registered Sale Deeds dated 25.04.2022 and that implementation of the DRT’s order dated 27.11.2024, including the proposed re-auction, would prejudice the rights of the Petitioner and subsequent purchasers.

4. The fear of the Petitioner that the property would be re-auctioned if the documents are handed-over to the Bank is unfounded for the reason that the Tribunal has directed the Petitioner to file the documents of the Subject Property in a sealed cover before the Tribunal and not to give them to the Bank. The fact that the Petitioner has sold portions of the property to two third-party purchasers cannot vitiate the Order passed by the DRT setting aside the sale in favour of the Petitioner herein and directing for re-auction of the property. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Order passed by the Tribunal would prejudice the rights of the Petitioner and subsequent purchasers is not tenable.

5. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to find any anomaly in the Order passed by the DRAT.

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

7. It is open for the parties to approach the DRAT by filing appropriate application to hear the matter expeditiously.

8. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the plea of the Petitioner for early disposal of the matter. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 Rahul