PRABHU DAYAL MEMORIAL RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND ORS vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 2 November 2026

1. 1. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Dubey, Counsel for the appellants seeks adjournment as he is not having the case file. The request for the adjournment is appearing to be totally misconceived and without any basis, hence rejected.

2. 2. This Tribunal is proceeded to decide the appeal which is pending since 2017 on merit. It is also pertinent to mention that Sh. Gautam Gupta, Counsel for respondent no. 1 also informed that O.A. bearing No. 1694/2017 is pending without trial as the appeal is not decided since 2017.

3. 3. In the present appeal the challenge is to order dated 28.11.2017, whereby right to file written statement by the appellants was ordered to be closed. The DRT-II, Chandigarh while passing the impugned order dated 28.11.2017, observed that there was no stay regarding the filing of the written statement and the appellant was sought to file written statement on 08.05.2017. Thereafter, on 29.06.2017 opportunity was granted to the defendants including the appellants to file the written statement but written statement was not filed. The order dated 28.11.2017 is reproduced as under:

Perusal of the records shows that in the affidavit filed by defendant no. 1, there is a mention of detail of the amount disbursed.

The apprehension of the bank was that whether the amount taken as a loan was routed through HDFC bank or not.

This order was passed on 16.06.2017.

The loan was taken in the year 2011.

The pass book/account statement of the HDFC bank bearing account no. 50200006677751 for the year 2011 to 2017 (till the next date of hearing) be produced on the next date of hearing.

Defendant no. 3, who has filed the affidavit on behalf of defendant no. 1 to be also present on the next date of hearing in Court.

Written statement has not been filed by the defendants despite opportunities.

There was no stay regarding filing of the written statement and opportunity was sought to file written statement on 08.05.2017.

Even on 29.06.2017 opportunity was again granted to the defendants to file written statement before the next date of hearing which was 07.07.2017 and even till that date also, written statement was not filed.

Written statement has not been filed by the defendants till date.

I see no reason to grant further time to the defendants to file written statement.

As such right to file written statement by the defendant is closed.

The matter is not listed before the Hon'ble High Court of the Punjab & Haryana on 23.01.2018.

4. Sh. Sudhir Kr. Dubey, Counsel for the appellants during the course of argument has referred the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP-COM No. 148/2017 (Now CWP- 20168/2017), whereby the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the DRT-II, Chandigarh to adjourn the O.A. beyond the next date of hearing before the High Court. However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 06.09.2017 has clarified that the DRT may continue with the proceeding but the passing of the final order shall remain stayed.

5. Sh. Gautam Gupta, Counsel for the respondent no. 1 argued that the limitation of 45 days for filing the written statement is counted from 06.09.2017 even then the written statement was not filed till passing of the impugned order dated 28.11.2017 and as such the written statement was not filed within the prescribed period of 45 days as per Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

6. There is no merit in the argument advanced by Sh. Sudhir Kr. Dubey, Counsel for the appellant as the time period of 45 days prescribed cannot be extended beyond 45 days. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

The DRT-II, Chandigarh shall be at liberty to proceed with the trial in terms of the Punjab & Haryana High Court order as referred herein. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of SD/- (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson

-P