VINOD KUMAR SHARMA vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 9 October 2026

Df, I]TS IIE(I)Vf RY T{PPEI,T,ATE TRIBUNAL. DtrLIII Appeal No.l59/2025 In IIA No.58/2025 Arising out ofSA lto.ll212023 (DRT-I, Delhi) Vitrod Xumar Sharn, Punjab Nrtional Bank 09.10.2026 Ilon'blc Dr. Justi.c Sudhir Kudrr.Inin Present: Sh. Gaurav Srivastava, Advocate for appellant through VC Sh. Satya Prakash Singh, Advocate for respondent through VC This matler is laken up rhrough Hybrid hearing.

r. The appellant filed S.A. b€aring no.3l212023 litled as vino'l Kunor Shi.nr V Punirb Nrtioml Blnk which was stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. DRTI, Delhi vide ord€r dated 30.06.2023 dispos€d ofthe S.A. with rhe direction to the appellant to deposil a surn ofRs.5.50lacs within t0 days and thercafter vide order dated 13.07.2023 the applicarion for exlension oftime ro deposil the balance amount was rejecled. Thereafte., the appellant filed a Misc. Application bearing no. CM(M) No.l13212023 before rhe High Court of trelhi and the Hish Courr of Delhi vide o.der dated 28.07.2023 has directed the Tribunal ro hear the S.A. on 31.07.2023. However, the S.A. bedin8 no.312/2023 could not be lisied beforc DRTJ. Delhi on 31.07.2023 as the order dated 28.07.2023 p6sd by the High Court ofDelhi was not available on r€cord.

2. DRT-I, Delhi receiv€d th€ said order on 16.08.2023 and thereafter the S.A. wa! lisled on vdious oeasions but rone appeared on behalf of lhe app€llanr and accordinsly S.A. was ordercd ro be disnissed in default vide order dared 24.11.2023. DRT-I, D€lhi aeain vide order dated 26.03.2025 h6 restored the S.A. lo its original position in view ofrhe order pd*d by rhe High Cou( ofDelhi. It is peninent to mention th.i DRT-I, Delhi vide order dated 28.03.2025 has direcred the flppellant to deposit a sum of Rs.3 lacs on 28.01.2025 and thereafter Ri.3.l2 lacs within 30 days and thereafter the respondent was restBined from auclioning the subject pmpeiy on 28.03.2025.

3. The appellant filed a misc. application for seeking extens;oD of time for deposifing the balanc€ amount ofRs.6.12 lacs to rhe respondents in pursuance of order dated 28.03.2025 which was ordered ro be dismissed vide rhe impusned order dated 26.06.2025 which is mder challenge in the present appeal.

4. Sh. Gaurav Snvastava, Advocate for rhe appellant staied rhat in rerms of order dated 28.07.2023 passed by rhe High Court ofDelhi ihe S.A. bearing no.3l212023 was ordered to be restored but in the impugned order dated 26.06.2025. ir wa! ordered to be consiSned io record room. He turrher staied that S.A. beding no.3l2l2023 was r€quired to be decided on merit in pursuance of the order dared 1E.07.2021 pased by lhc lligh Couft.

5. It was also made clear that in case the appellant failed to deposjt the afor€said amount along with tumishing .n mdertaking, thd the respondent was given Iiberty io proceed as per the SARFAESI Act. It was also obseryed rhar nothing rEmained in th€ S.A. for turther adjudication and with the consent ofthe parties the S.A. bearing no.3 l2l2023 was ordered to be disposed of.

6. Tte couns€l for the respondent has refened the ord€r dated 07.11.2025 passed by the HiSh Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.16864/2025, the perus&l of which reflects that the appellant has handed over a demmd draft ofRs.6.l4 lacs to the rcspondent with an undertaking to deposit the remaining defaulted amounr within 15 days and also to continue to deposit the EMIS regularly as p€r rhe paymenr sohedule. Ther€after, the r€spondent wa6 r€strained ftom proc€eding with the auction of the suit propaty. It was also ord€red that in case of defaulr, rh€ respondent shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

7. The cousl for the .espondert also refered the lett€r dated I L I 2.2025 whereby the appellant had sought €xlension of aret of 90 days' time to clee the rcmsining overdue anoun and also to ke€p the SARFAESI proceedi.gs in abeyance. The counsel for th€ respond€nt sEted thar the appellad has not complied with tle said

8. In view of the above submissions, the conrenrions of the counsel for rhe appellanl thar the S.A. beatinl no.31212023 is to be decided on merir cannot be ac.epted. Th€re is no illegality or infimity in rhe impugned ord€r which warrants any interfe.ence by this Tribuml. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. \.ti

(l) r. Jtrsticc Sudhir Kumrr Jair)