M/S PRAG ALLIED CHEMICALS vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 13 October 2026

In SA No. 81 of 2025 M/s Prag Allied Chemicals and others Versus Punjab National Bank Dated: 13.10.2026 Item No. 127 Argued by: Ms.Adit Singal & Ms. Swati Singal, Counsel for the Applicants.

Mr.DK Gupta & Ms.Seerat Sharma, Counsel for Respondent Bank.

M/s Prag Allied Chemical and others (Applicants) have filed the present MA against Punjab National Bank (Respondent), for restoration of SA No. 81 of 2025.

2. The background facts are that Applicants had filed SA No. 81/2025, which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 05.02.2026 with the following order:- Counsel for the applicant pleads no instructions from the applicant. He states that in this case, the auction purchaser has not been impleaded as a party. He has communicated with the applicant many a time and has asked him to come and sign the papers. He has also produced on the record a copy of the registered letter dated 29.01.2026, sent by him to the applicant. However, he states that he has not received any reply from the applicant. In view of this, SA stands disposed of. Since, SA stands disposed of, the interim order dated 24.11.2025 also stands recalled.

3. Applicants filed MA No. 18 of 2026 for restoration of SA No. 81/2025. However, vide order dated 21.04.2026, MA No. 18 of 2026 was also dismissed by this Tribunal with the following order:-

7. First of all, the applicant has not disclosed the date on which he was taken into custody. He has also not placed on record a copy of the bail order. Admittedly, the property was sold on 17.12.2025. On 13.01.2026, counsel for the Bank had informed the counsel for the applicant in S.A. No.81/2025 that the Bank had sold the property. Counsel for the Bank had also supplied the particulars of the auction purchaser to the counsel for the Applicants. Despite that, no application was moved. Ultimately, on 05.02.2026, counsel for the Applicants

himself pleaded "no instructions," and this Tribunal disposed of the S.A.

8. I am of the considered view, that no ground for restoration of the S.A. is made out; accordingly, the M.A. is hereby dismissed.

4. Against the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by this Tribunal in MA No. 18 of 2026, Applicants had filed Appeal No. 95/2026 before the Hon’ble DRAT, New Delhi. Vide order dated 14.07.2026, Hon’ble the DRAT, disposed of the appeal with the following observations:-

3. It is stated that the S.A. bearing no.81/2025 was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2026 as the appellant no.2 was not giving any instruction to the counsel. Sh. Varun Gupta further stated that the M.A. bearing no.18/2026 which was filed for restoration of the S.A. was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2026. Sh. Gupta further stated that without going into the merit of the case an opportunity be given to the appellant to file a fresh application before DRT-I, Chandigarh for restoration of the S.A. bearing no.81/2025 along with an application for protection of the subject property. Accordingly, without going to the merits of the submissions made by Sh. Varun Gupta, Advocate for the appellant, the appellant is given one more opportunity to file another miscellaneous application for seeking restoration of the S.A. bearing no.81/2025. If such an application is filed, then DRT-I, Chandigarh shall consider the said application in accordance with law within 30 days.

4. Appeal stands disposed of.

5. With this background, I come to the present MA i.e. 81 of 2026. Applicants in the present MA have alleged that during the pendency of the SARFAESI proceedings, an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance arose when Applicant No. 2, who was exclusively looking after the litigation on behalf of all the Applicants and was fully conversant with the facts, documents and legal proceedings, was taken into custody by the Delhi Police on 16.12.2025 in connection with a criminal case. Owing to the aforesaid judicial custody, Applicant No. 2 was completely prevented from communicating with the learned counsel appearing before this Hon'ble Tribunal and was unable to furnish the necessary instructions or documents as required for effective

prosecution of the pending Securitization Application. The said circumstance was wholly beyond the control of the Applicants and could neither have been foreseen nor avoided. It is stated that in the absence of any communication or instructions from Applicant No. 2, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants expressed his inability to proceed with the matter for want of instructions when the case was taken up before this Hon'ble Tribunal. On account of the aforesaid statement of "No Instructions" made by the learned counsel, this Hon'ble Tribunal, vide order dated 05.02.2026, disposed of SA No. 81 of 2025 without adjudicating any of the issues raised therein on merits. It is further stated that immediately after Applicant No. 2 was released from judicial custody on 13.02.2026 and on acquiring knowledge of the order dated 05.02.2026, the Applicants acted with utmost promptitude and filed MA No. 18 of 2026, seeking restoration of SA No. 81 of 2025. In the said application, the Applicants specifically explained the circumstances which had prevented them from effectively prosecuting the matter on the relevant date. Alongwith the said restoration application, the Applicants placed on record all relevant documents including the orders relating to judicial custody and release of Applicant No. 2 to demonstrate that their inability to prosecute the proceedings was neither deliberate nor intentional but arose solely because of circumstances entirely beyond their control. It is stated that despite the Applicants having disclosed sufficient cause supported by documentary evidence, this Hon'ble Tribunal, vide order dated 21.04.2026, dismissed MA No. 18 of 2026. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Applicants initially approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing CWP No. 12961 of 2026, challenging the dismissal of MA No. 18 of 2026. However, during the course of hearing, the Applicants sought permission to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to avail the statutory remedy. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 09.07.2026, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the

Applicants to approach the Hon'ble DRAT. Accordingly, Applicants filed Appeal No. 95 of 2026, challenging the order dated 21.04.2026.

6. Vide order dated 14.07.2026, Hon’ble the DRAT, New Delhi, disposed of the appeal with the liberty to the Applicants to file a fresh Miscellaneous Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking restoration of Securitization Application No. 81 of 2025. Applicants in the present MA have alleged that the Applicants were prevented by sufficient bona fide and unavoidable circumstances from effectively prosecuting SA No. 81/2025. On account of complete absence of communication, MA No. 18/2026 was also dismissed. Applicants state that this Tribunal should have issued the notices to the Applicants. Accordingly, it is stated that the order dated 05.02.2026, passed by this Tribunal, dismissing SA No. 81/2025 be recalled and the same be restored.

7. Bank, in reply to the MA, has denied the case of the Applicants.

8. I have heard Mr.Adit Singal, counsel for the Applicants and Mr.DK Gupta, counsel for the Respondent Bank.

9. Mr.Singal, counsel for the Applicants has argued that the Hon’ble DRAT has granted the liberty to the Applicants to withdraw the earlier MA and to file a fresh one. Once, the liberty is granted to the Applicants to withdraw the earlier MA and to file a fresh one, all the proceedings taken earlier stands wiped of. Accordingly, the present MA be allowed and the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in SA No. 81 of /2025, dismissing the SA be recalled.

10. Mr. Singla has placed reliance on the following judgments: Civil Revision No. 26 of 1990, titled Veer Bhan versus Madan Gopal (Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court); Civil Appeal No. 7433 of 1997, titled K. Sivaramaiah versus Rukmani Ammal and Civil Appeal No. 963-1975, Tahil Ram Versus Ramchand, Civil Appeal No. 8474-1997, Malkit Singh versus Joginder Singh, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; Rita Vashisht versus

ICICI Bank, CWP No. 27433-2018 and CWP No. 13998-2020 Shree Goyal versus Punjab and Sind Bank and CWP-2981-2025, titled M/s Deswal Brother versus PNB, decided on 03.02.2025 (Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court).

11. Per contra, Mr. Gupta, counsel for the Respondent Bank has argued that not only Parmod Kumar Gupta but his son Dipanshu Gupta was also pursuing the legal proceedings. Mr.Dipanshu Gupta is also party to the present proceedings. Dipanshu Gupta had also filed SA No. 255/2025 before DRT-II, Delhi in respect of the same matter. On 24.12.2025, Dipanshu Gupta had withdrawn SA No. 255/2025 filed before DRT-II, Delhi. This shows that not only Parmod Kumar Gupta but his son Dipanshu Gupta was also pursuing the legal proceedings. Regarding the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, counsel submitted that the Hon’ble DRAT did not grant any liberty to the Applicants to file a fresh MA. Counsel for the Applicants had simply made a statement before the Hon’ble DRAT that he be permitted to file a fresh application, which the Hon’ble DRAT granted. Mr. Gupta submitted that the position in the present case is different. In the present case, counsel for the applicant in SA No. 81/2025 had made detailed submission and produced on the record a copy of letter which he had written to the Applicants alongwith postal receipt. Applicants were fully aware of the proceedings and despite that they did not come present. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the present case not only the interest of the bank but also the interest of the auction purchaser is involved. Accordingly, it is submitted that no ground for allowing this MA is made out and the same be dismissed.

12. I have considered the rival contentions.

13. I have already given the chronology of events in the opening part of the order. Admittedly, vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal, SA No. 81/2025 was dismissed with the following observations:- Counsel for the applicant pleads no instructions from the applicant. He states that in this case,

the auction purchaser has not been impleaded as a party. He has communicated with the applicant many a time and has asked him to come and sign the papers. He has also produced on the record a copy of the registered letter dated 29.01.2026, sent by him to the applicant. However, he states that he has not received any reply from the applicant. In view of this, SA stands disposed of. Since, SA stands disposed of, the interim order dated 24.11.2025 also stands recalled.

14. Applicants had filed MA No. 18/2026, which was also dismissed by this Tribunal, vide order dated 21.04.2026. Applicants had filed appeal, which was also disposed of by the Hon’ble DRAT, vide order dated 14.07.2026. This deserves to be mentioned that the Hon’ble DRAT, New Delhi did not set aside the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by this Tribunal, in MA No. 18/2026.

15. That apart, the Bank has produced on the record a copy of order dated 24.12.2025 passed by DRT-II, Delhi in SA No. 255/2025, which shows that the son of the Parmod Kumar Gupta, namely Dipanshu Gupta was also pursuing the legal proceedings.

16. I have also perused the judgments cited at the Bar by counsel for the Applicants. In Veer Bhan (supra) case, the Hon’ble High Court had granted the permission to file a fresh suit. In the case in hand, Hon’ble the DRAT did not grant any liberty.

17. The judgments in K. Sivaramaiah and Rita Vashisht (supra) case, have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand. In Tahil Ram’s (supra) case, the applicant was not aware of the proceedings before the court and the counsel had withdrawn from the case. In the case in hand, the counsel had duly intimated to the applicants about the proceedings. The other judgments are on different facts.

18. This application is also time-barred as it seeks to recall the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal in SA No. 81/2025. The application was

moved on 23.07.2026 and on the face of it, the application is beyond limitation.

19. I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present MA. The same is hereby dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly. Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to both the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer Pronounced in open court

DRT-I, Chandigarh Dated: 13.10.2026 Manoj