LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED AUTHORIZED MS R VIJAY SHREE vs Raghotham properties pvt ltd on 29 September 2026

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson Diary No. 4375/2026 In

Misc. Appeal No. 64/2026 Between

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. Raghotham Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s

-: Order dated: 29/09/2026: -

Present as under: Senior Counsel Mr. Nitin Thakkar i/b Mr. Babu Sivaprakasam, Counsel for the Appellants.

2. Heard the Praecipe/Application Diary No. 4375/2026 of the Appellants for the preponement of the date of hearing from 10.12.2026 to any earlier date.

This application is moved for preponement of Appeal date by the LIC Housing Finance Limited/Appellant interalia, mainly on the grounds, as stated in the four-page application, that the outstanding dues against the Respondents are more than ₹900 crores ; that, because of the impugned order of DRT, Recovery Proceedings are complete standstill ; that, the process of taking physical possession is at an advanced stage ; that, because of the impugned order, the Appellants are deprived of benefit of statutory enforcement mechanism available to them under SARFAESI Act ; that, the balance of convenience is in favour of the Appellants ; that, prejudice is being suffered by the Applicants because of the impugned order.

He would further submit that this Appeal was on board on 10.09.2026 when the Chairperson, DRAT was not available, consequently, In-charge Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai granted the next date of hearing as 17.12.2026.

3. Considered.

4. It would be pertinent and important to observe at very inception that in this application for preponement of the hearing, no such kind of any extraordinary urgency is made out which is more important than the urgency in any other appeal of the Banks pending before this Appellate Tribunal. The urgency made out in the praecipe is general in nature which is available in each and every matter and appeal pending before this Appellate Tribunal. It would not be out of place to observe that the Applicants/Appellants have not stated or submitted any extraordinary grounds in praecipe/application that may be reason to prioritize the present appeal over and above the other appeals. It is also important to note that every matter is important and no specific or a single case can be prioritized on the other cases which have the same kind of urgencies and issues to be decided.

5. It is also not the case of the Applicants/Appellants that if the date of hearing is not preponed then the Applicants/Appellants would suffer irreparable loss or injury which cannot be otherwise compensated.

6. The full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, Abhay S. Oka, J. B. Bardiwala, Manoj Misra and Pankaj Mithal in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2024] 2 S.C.R. 946, observed in para number of 33 of the judgment as under: “There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”

Though this observation has been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the direction being given by the Apex Court/ Constitutional Courts to the Lower Courts, but the underlying philosophy which is the bed-rock of this observation is equally relevant and applicable for deciding the present Praecipe/Application for preponement.

When extraordinary reasons and grounds, which are not present in other appeals, are not made out in present Praecipe/Application then prioritising/preponing the hearing of the present appeal shall be an act of judicial impropriety and judicial dishonesty and shall cause prejudice to the dispensation of justice to the litigants of other cases.

7. It would not be out of place to observe again that because of the large pendency before this Appellate Tribunal insufficient human resources and infrastructure, the appeals are being adjourned even to the month of January, 2027 by this Appellate Tribunal.

8. In view of the above discussion on facts and law , this Appellate Tribunal is of the considered view that when there is no immediate danger to the right of recovery of the outstanding due, the present Praecipe/Application is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, this application for early hearing is dismissed. Sd/- Chairperson 29.09.2026 MKS (praecipe)