Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SS GROUP PVT LTD vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 8 October 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Misc. Appeal No.175/2024
Arising out of T.S.A. No.103/2024 (DRT-II, Delhi)**
**Item No.35**
**M/s S.S. Group Private Limited
V.
State Bank of India & others**
**08.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
Present: Sh. Vekant Rao, Advocate for the appellant through VC
Sh. Ashok Kumar Bahal, Advocate for the respondent no.1 through VC
This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
1. The appellant filed S.A. bearing TSA No.103/2024 titled as **S.S. Group Private Limited V. State Bank of India** which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The appellant being S.A. applicant filed I.A. bearing no.2213/2024 which was decided by DRT vide order dated 26.04.2024. The operative portion of the order dated 26.04.2024 is reproduced as under:-
5. The main contention of the ld. counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has not paid the full consideration of the subject property to the applicant. It is submitted that the cheque that has been given to the applicant has bounced and therefore, there are dues of the applicant on the subject property. It is also submitted that the respondent no.2 has not taken any permission from applicant for mortgaging the property against a business loan. It is submitted that permission to mortgage was given only for purchase of the new property and not for the business loan. From perusal of the record it is clear that in the conveyance deed it has been clearly written that the entire consideration has already been paid by the respondent no.2 and there is no due against the respondent no.2. The applicant has also given possession to mortgage the property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent bank has not applied due diligence clause. Prima facie there appears no case in favour of the applicant and therefore, the IA no.2213/2024 of the applicant is liable to be dismissed.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
I.A. no.2213/2024 Interim prayer of the applicant is hereby allowed. The respondent bank is restrained from taking any action against the applicant till further order of this Tribunal.
2. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed I.A. bearing no.2335/2024 for clarification/rectification of the order dated 26.04.2024. DRT-II, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 has allowed the application bearing no.2335/2024 and made corrections as prayed for by the respondent no.1. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 is reproduced as under:
**9. In such circumstances, the IA no.2335/2024 is allowed. The order dated 26.04.2024 be corrected and the operative portion after the word "Order" the sentence "IA no.2213/2024 interim prayer of the applicant is here allowed. The respondent bank is restrained from taking any action against the applicant till further order of this Tribunal" may be substituted by the sentence "IA no.2213/2024 is hereby dismissed". The Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to intimate the correction of the order to the Ld. counsel of all the parties.**
3. Sh. Venkat Rao, Advocate for the appellant argued that the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and notice on the application was also not issued to the appellant giving opportunity to file reply. Accordingly, it is argued that the order dated 03.05.2024 being passed against the principles of natural justice.
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar Bahl, Advocate for the respondent no.1 stated that the subject property has already been put to auction and sold and sale certificate has also been issued to the auction purchaser on 12.07.2024.
5. The present appeal is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.1 to supply the particulars of the auction purchaser and details of the sale including the sale certificate to the appellant within 10 days from today. Thereafter, the appellant shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for impleadment of the auction purchaser and also seek direction, if any, by way of interim injunction regarding further transfer of the property by the auction purchaser.
6. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**
-pk