Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs SMT PRAKASH KAUR and ors on 29 October 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Misc. Appeal No.125/2021
Arising out of M.A. No.173/2019
In O.A. No.1029/2016 (DRT-II, Delhi)**
**Item No.7**
**State Bank of India
V.
Smt. Prakash Kaur & others**
**29.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
Present: Sh. Vipan Datta, Advocate for the appellant through VC
None for the respondents
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 appellant filed O.A. bearing no.1029/2026 which has already been decided. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 being the defendants 5 to 7 in the O.A. filed M.A. bearing no.173/2019 (NDN 1316/2019) which was allowed but with the condition to deposit the amount for which the properties mortgaged were auctioned by the Recovery Officer. The relevant para 9 of the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 is reproduced as under:- **9. In this case after final order is passed, the mortgaged properties were auctioned by the Recovery Officer to recover the huge debts of Rs.1996,56,03.949/-. Since the final decree has already been passed, I am of the considered opinion that ex parte orders against D-5 to 7 cannot be set aside without imposing the condition. In the facts & circumstances of the case, the mortgaged properties were auctioned, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to direct D-5 to 7 to deposit the amount for which the properties mortgaged were auctioned by the Recovery Officer before this Tribunal within 30 days, in default the MA shall stands dismissed.**
2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Sh. Vipan Datta, Advocate for the appellant stated that the respondents 1 to 3 being the applicants of M.A. bearing no.173/2019 have not complied with the direction as given in para 9 of the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 and due to this reason the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to any benefit in terms of the order dated 16.12.2020.
-2-
3. In view of the submissions made by Sh. Vipan Datta, Advocate for the appellant, the present appeal does not require further adjudication and is accordingly disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
\_\_\_\_\_ **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**
-pk\$