Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
NAYAN AGARWAL AND 2 ORS vs TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND 6 ORS on 26 October 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
(Holding Additional Charge of DRT, Allahabad)
Regular Appeal DN/1203/2024
Arising out of S.A. No.819/2022 (DRT, Allahabad)
Item No.02
Nayan Agarwal & 2 others
V.
Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited & 6 others 26.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Present: Sh. Zain Abbas, Advocate for the appellants through VC
Sh. Maneesh Mehrotra, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2
through VC
Sh. D.N. Awasthi Advocate for the respondents 3 to 7 through VC
This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
I.A. No.1595/2026 (application for urgent listing of interim application)
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 urgent listing of the interim application for stay and protection on behalf of the appellants. The said application bearing I.A. No.1596/2026 is taken up for hearing today itself. I.A. No.1595/2026 stands disposed of.
I.A. No.1596/2026
2. The respondents 3 to 7 filed S.A. bearing no.819/2022 which was decided by DRT, Allahabad vide judgment dated 23.07.2024. DRT vide order dated 23.07.2024 has allowed the S.A. and set aside the sale notice dated 16.12.2022 along with all consequential acts including confirmation of sale, issuance of sale certificate, execution of sale deed. The appellants being the auction purchasers have filed the present appeal bearing DN/1203/2024.
3. Sh. Zain Abbas, Advocate for the appellants stated and argued that the judgment dated 23.07.2024 was passed against the facts and law and the respondents 1 and 2 being the financial institution has taken back the possession of the property and handed over to the respondents 3 to 7 who were borrowers. It is likely that the respondents 3 to 7 may sell and/or change the physical condition and status of the subject property. He prays for the maintenance of *status quo* in respect of the possession and structure of the subject property.
4. Sh. Maneesh Mehrotra, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 financial institution stated that the auction sale was set aside vide judgment dated 23.07.2024 and thereafter the auction purchasers have handed over the possession of the secured asset to the respondent financial institution after refund of the auction money. The secured asset has already been handed over to the borrowers. The financial institution has also filed an appeal to impugned the order dated 23.07.2024 which was withdrawn due to successful O/S of the respondent 1 and 2 with the respondents 3 to 7. It is further argued that no *status quo* can be passed as no cause of action is surviving in favour of the appellants.
5. The respondents 3 to 7 also made submissions on the similar lines which the respondents 1 and 2 advanced.
6. It is reflecting from the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties that the sale along with all consequential proceeding was set aside vide the judgment dated 23.07.2024 passed in S.A. bearing no.819/2022. The borrowers were given back the possession of the subject property and the borrowers have settled with the respondent financial. It is also reflecting that the appellant being the auction purchasers have been refunded the auction money. Therefore, at present there is no cause of action to grant any kind of interim relief to the appellants. The application is accordingly dismissed.
7. List the appeal on 27.11.2026, the date already fixed.
---
(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson Addl. Charge, DRAT, Allahabad pk\$