Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Dheeraj Aggarwal vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 15 October 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
Appeal No. 307/2026
Arising out of TA No. 1250/2024 (DRT-II, Delhi)
Item No. 13
**Sh. Dheeraj Aggarwal**
**V**
**Central Bank of India & others**
**15.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
Present: Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma, Advocate for appellant This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
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 respondent no. 1 filed the Original Application bearing TA no. 1250/2024 titled as **Central Bank of India V Smt. Neelam Chauhan & others** which was stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The appellant was impleaded as defended no. 5 in the Original Application. The DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 17.08.2026 has decreed the OA against defendants no. 1 to 4. The relevant portion of the final order dated 17.08.2026 is reproduced as under:
**(1) I hereby allow this TA of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 4 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs. 34,16,937/- along with cost, expenses and interest @14.25% from the date of filing of this OA which has become TA till the date of realisation.**
**(2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property bearing residential built-up property on 1<sup>st</sup> Floor bearing no. A-20, measuring 150 sq. yds. comprised in Khasra no. 29/16 situated in the village Dabri, Colony known as Dabri Extn, New Delhi. In case of short of fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. 1 to 4.**
2. The appellant being the defendant no. 5 being aggrieved filed the present appeal. Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the appellant has referred the para no 8 of the final order dated 17.08.2026 and contended that the appellant was the rightful owner of the residential built-up property on 1<sup>st</sup> Floor bearing no. A-20, measuring 150 sq. yds. comprised in Khasra no. 29/16 situated in the village Dabri, Colony known as Dabri Extn, New Delhi having purchased the property in question from Asha Rani Chauhan by virtue of sale deed dated 19.11.2025 (Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma stated that correct date of sale deed is 19.11.2015).
3. The DRT in para no. 8 of the final order dated 17.08.2026 has observed that the contention of the appellant being the defendant no. 5 is that he is owner of the subject property cannot be accepted on the basis of the sale deed in his favour which were stated to be the subsequent to the mortgaged in favour of the respondent no. 1. It was also observed that the appellant being the defendant no. 5 may file an application under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act for claiming that he is the owner of the subject property which may be decided by the Recovery Officer in the execution proceedings of the recovery certificate.
5. Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the appellant stated that the main grievance of the appellant is that the DRT in the final order dated 17.08.2026 also ordered that in case of failure of the deposit of the decretal amount within the stipulated period by the defendants no. 1 to 4 then the recovery can be affected from the sale of the mortgaged property as detailed herein above.
6. Sh. Sharma further argued that although vide final order dated 17.08.2026 the decree was not passed against the appellant being the defendant no. 5 but in case of non-recovery from the defendants no. 1 to 4 the subject property which is purchased by the appellant being the defendant no. 5 can be put to the sale. Accordingly he prayed that the right of the appellant being the defendant no. 5 be decided in the present appeal.
7. The perusal of the final order dated 17.08.2026 reflects that vide final order dated 17.08.2026 no direction is passed against the appellant being the defendant no. 5 for the recovery of the decretal amount. The liberty is also given as per para no. 8 of the final order dated 17.08.2026 to the appellant to raise objection before the Recovery Officer as per Rule 11 of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act in case the subject property is proposed to be put on sale. It is also made clear that if the Recovery Officer proceed to put the subject property on sale then appellant being the defendant no. 5 shall be having liberty to file appropriate objection and if such objection is filed then the Recovery Officer shall decide those objections independently without being influenced by any observation made in the order dated 17.08.2026. The present appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
sd -
(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson
-P\$