STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/S KALA MANDIR PALACE on 15 September 2026

1. The instant application is filed for seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as stated in the applications. After considering all facts, the delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is decided accordingly.

**Misc. Appeal No. 327/2026**

2. The respondent filed S.A. bearing No. 373/2026 titled as **M/s Kala Mandir Palace& others v. State Bank of India** which is stated to be pending before DRT-Jaipur.

3. DRT-Jaipur vide order dated 10.06.2026 has directed the appellant not to disturb the possession of the respondents in respect of the subject property. The impugned order dated 10.06.2026 is reproduced as under:

**Case No. SA/373/2026 MS KALA MANDIR PALACE Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA**

**Date: 10.06.2026.**

**Proceedings through hybrid mode**

**Present: Shri Abhishek Bhandari, Counsel for the Applicant Shri Kirti Kapoor, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI**

**In this matter, the counsel for the applicant submits that one advocate Sh. KK Pareek is there at police station where his client has been sitting. The counsel for the**

bank submits that the bank has sent a letter to the police station. Be that it may be, the counsel for the applicant submits that they are running a hotel where they are getting booking for 2nd, 3rd and 4th July, 2026 and till then if the bank will not disturb the possession, they will regularize the account third account by 31.07.2026.

The counsel for the bank submits that no fresh notice for possession has been issued. Be whatever it may be, since the inclination shows to regularize the account, if the possession is stayed till 30.07.2026.

**Re-notify the matter on 04.08.2026, till then possession shall not be disturbed by the bank.**

4. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeal. Ms. Jaya Tomar, Counsel for the appellant stated that there was no need to pass the protection order in favour of the respondents. It is further stated that in the order dated 10.06.2026, the DRT-Jaipur observed that if the possession is stayed till 30.07.2026 as the respondents has shown inclination to regularize the account, the SA was adjourned to 04.08.2026 and the appellant was directed not to disturb the possession of the subject property qua the respondents. Ms. Jaya Tomar, Counsel further stated that thereafter the SA was adjourned on 24.08.2026, 08.09.2026 and now SA is listed for 05.10.2026.

5. Ms. Jaya Tomar also referred the order dated 29.05.2026, on that day, the Counsel for the appellant submitted before the DRT-Jaipur that they shall be issuing fresh 15 days' notice to the respondents before taking possession of the subject property. Ms. Jaya Tomar further referred the order dated 30.04.2026, whereby the appellant was directed to give 15 days' advance notice before taking any coercive action with regard to the subject property. In these circumstances, Ms. Jaya Tomar argued that there was no need for passing the interim protection vide order dated 10.06.2026.

6. In view of the submissions made by Ms. Jaya Tomar, the present appeal is disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application for recall/ vacation of the order dated 10.06.2026 to the extent of passing the interim order in favour of the appellant within 7 days and, if the said application is filed, then the DRT-Jaipur is directed to decide the said application on 05.10.2026 i.e. next date of hearing or any other date, if so fixed by the DRT-Jaipur but not later than four weeks. With these directions, the present appeal along with pending application, if any, is disposed of.

7. The copy of this order be sent to DRT-Jaipur for information and compliance.

sd -

(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson

-N§