Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SMT KAVITA SRIVASTAVA vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 4 August 2026
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.
**Date: 04.08.2026**
Item No.17
Present: Sh. A. K. Bansal, Ld. Counsel for Applicant(through VC) Sh. T. Qamar, Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank/No. 2 & 3
Called out, Ld. Counsel for the parties present.
It is admitted to the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant the prayer made by the applicant in this Miscellaneous Application has not been made in Securitization Application No. 69 of 2019 Smt. Kavita Srivastava Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. and at present the applicant has filed petition by making party Ld. District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand, respondent Bank, Sh. Jagendra Singh Auction Purchaser of the property for which Securitization Application was filed by the Applicant.
The Securitization Application was decided by this Tribunal 26.05.2026 finally and the Applicant wants to grant relief by this Tribunal by modification of the said judgement on the ground that the Applicant has taken financial assistance on the basis of Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro & Small Enterprises(CGTMSE) and also stated that the respondent bank has admitted about the said amount of Rs.21,22,304.60ps in favour of applicant on 23.08.2016 by the Trust.
It is admitted to the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that the Original Application for recovery filed by the respondent bank which was decided by this Tribunal and again decided by Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition. The litigation between the parties has been started after classification of account as NPA on 31.07.2015. A period of 11 years has already been completed. The Applicant has filed this Miscellaneous Application on the basis of Written Statement /reply dated 18.12.2019 on behalf of Defendant No. 2 & 3. No relief has been claimed by the Applicant till deciding the Securitization Application on 26.05.2026 i.e. for a period of more than six years from the date of filing Securitization Application.
If any relief has not been claimed by the applicant and not granted by the Tribunal, the applicant was entitled to approach Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, this fact has already mentioned in the judgement of Securitization Application, if any party is not satisfied may approach Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad under Section 18 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act.
The conduct of the Applicant has shown that the Applicant has faith in litigation only, as nothing has been paid by the Applicant till today after passing judgment on 26.05.2026 or before that during litigation between the parties as not mentioned about repayment of any amount in the petition. Every litigant is duty bound to approach judicial/semi judicial forum with clean hands. As per demand notice, the applicant is liable to pay Rs.43,89,092.95ps with interest from 01.10.2015 till the date of judgement passed in S.A. No. 69 of 2019, on the other hand as per award which was passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 192/2018 Union Bank of India Vs. Smt Kavita Srivastava nothing has been paid even though award is in question before Hon'ble High Court.
But the Applicant is not ready to repay a single pie in relation to the borrowed money till today and trying to make controversy by hook or crook. If Applicant wants to repay the borrowed money in appropriate manner, some amount should be repaid before filing this petition for showing bonafide in relation to repayment of borrowed money in question. The relief claimed by the Applicant cannot be granted through this petition as prayed by applicant. The applicant could have been raised the said point in original application proceedings in which liability has been decided. At this stage after a period of more than 10 years from the date of NPA and long exercise has already been taken by applicant in litigation.
The whole of the situation has shown that the applicant is not entitled for any relief through this petition and petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Hence dismissed in limine.
If any party is not satisfied, may approach Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal.
04.8.2026 (Umesh Kumar Sharma) Presiding Officer DRT, Dehradun