Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs RAM PRAKASH BAIRWA on 13 October 2026
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No.32412026
Arising out of S.A. No.30612026 (DRT, Jaipur)
Item No.04
State Bank of India
V.
Ram Prakash Bairwa
13.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Present: Sh. S.K. Tyagi and Sh. Ishaan Tyagi, Advocates for the appellant through VC
This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
I.A. No.143l12026 (application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant)
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.
1. The instant application is filed for condonation of delay of 82 days in filing the appeal due to the reasons stated in the application. After considering all the facts, the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Misc. Appeal No.324l2026
2. Respondent filed S.A. bearing no.30612026 titled as Ram Prakash Bairwa Vs. State Bank of India which is stated to be pending before DRT, Jaipur. DRT, Jaipur on 08.04.2026 took up the S.A. for hearing for the first time and directed the appellant i.e. respondent in the S.A. not to take any coercive steps. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 is reproduced as under:
2. ln this matter, counsel for the applicant submits that there was decree passed in the matter for Rs.33.00 Lac out of which they have already paid Rs.25.00 Lac. He further submits that the applicant wishes to settle the matter. Let the applicant approach the respondent bank with a suitable OTS proposal. Till the next date of hearing the respondent bank will not take any coercive steps.
3. Sh. S. K. Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant stated that the interim order as mentioned in para 2 of the order dated 08.04.2026 was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant or to file reply, which is against the principles of natural justice.
-2-
4. The perusal of the impugned order reflects that none was present on behalf of the appellant when the S.A. was taken up for hearing and the order granting stay was passed. The present appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file appropriate application for vacation of the interim order as mentioned in para 2 of the order dated 08.04.2026 within two weeks from today. If such an application is filed by the appellant, DRT, Jaipur shall decide the said application in accordance with law on or before the next date of hearing after giving opporlunity of being heard to the respondent i.e. applicant of the S.A. as well.
5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. -? Q-l'----'- (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson -pks