Suman Srivastava vs. Union Bank Of India & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 24 JULY, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(C) 5165/2025 & CM APPL. 29454/2025
SUMAN SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Ms.
Kamakshi Rao, Mr. Moksh Arora and
Ms. Mahima Bajaj, Advs.
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Yash Varma, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

1. The Petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the observations and
directions passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as “DRAT”) vide judgment dated 28.02.2025 in Misc. Appeal
No. 39 of 2025 and 40 of 2025; as well as against the observations and
directions passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
“DRT”) vide common judgment dated 14.02.2025 in Appeal No. 01 of 2025
and TMA 23 of 2024.
2. The DRAT vide the impugned Judgment has refused to entertain the
appeal without pre-deposit as mandated under Section 21 of the Recovery of
Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the RDB Act' ).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 1 of 15

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as admitted by the Petitioner
leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:-
i. Mr. Prakash Srivastava, the husband of the Petitioner, along
with other persons stood as mortgagor qua the loan granted by
the Union Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) in favour of M/s
Green World International Private Limited (Respondent No. 3)
on 19.02.2013.
ii. The husband of the Petitioner hypothecated his residential
property bearing address – A-3, South City – 1, Gurgaon,
Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “Property in Question”) in
lieu of the above-mentioned mortgage.
iii. The husband of the Petitioner died on 11.06.2013.
iv. After the death of the husband of the Petitioner, the Property in
Question was divested in the name of the Petitioner, and her
two sons, namely Mr. Anurag Srivastava (Respondent No. 9),
and Mr. Anuj Srivastava (Respondent No. 13).
v. Respondent No.1 renewed the terms of the loan as was
sanctioned to the Respondent No. 3/company on 13.03.2015.
vi. The loan account of Respondent No. 3 was declared as a Non-
Performing Asset on 30.01.2016. Further, a notice u/s 13(2) of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was issued by Respondent No. 1 to
the directors of Respondent No. 3 on 29.02.2016 demanding
remission of dues owed by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent
No. 1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 2 of 15

vii. The Respondent No. 1 filed an Original Application No. 30 of
2017 on 16.12.2016 against the Respondent No. 3 and its
directors for recovery of the said loan to the tune of Rs.
10,42,51,321.10 along-with pendente lite and future interest at
15% per annum till realization. Notices were issued to the
Defendants in the Original Application, but on failure to appear,
they were proceeded ex-parte on 25.08.2017.
viii. DRT-3, Delhi, vide its final order dated 23.08.2019 directed all
the Defendants in the Original Application to pay to the
Applicant Bank, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.
10,42,51,321.10/- together with cost and future interest @15%
per annum, from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of
realization; failing which the said amount would be recovered
from the sale of mortgaged properties.
ix. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated before the
Learned Recovery Officer of the DRT-1, in TRC No. 155 of
2022, wherein the Tribunal vide its Order dated 03.07.2024
ordered impleadment of LRs of the deceased CD – Mr. Prakash
Srivastava. The LRs, namely Mrs. Suman Srivastava
(Petitioner), Mr. Anurag Srivastava, and Mr. Anuj Srivastava,
were given notice under Rule 85 of Second Schedule of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, that steps will be taken under the
provisions of RDDBFI Act 1993 and as per the provisions of
the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with
Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962 to recover the
dues from the LRs of the deceased. Directions were also passed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 3 of 15

to issue sale proclamation notice qua the mortgaged property,
i.e., the Property in Question.
x. The Petitioner after receiving the sale proclamation notice dated
31.07.2024, filed her objections to TRC No. 155 of 2022 so as
to challenge the sale proclamation notice. She also preferred
TMA No. 23 of 2024 in O.A. No. 30 of 2017 thereby praying to
the DRT to set aside the final order dated 23.08.2019 as passed
in O.A. No. 30 of 2017.
xi. The Learned Recovery Officer vide Order dated 10.12.2024
dismissed the objections as filed by the Petitioner in TRC No.
155 of 2022. The DRT further appointed Mr. Praveen Kashyap
(Advocate) as Receiver for handing over the physical
possession of the Property in Question.
xii. The Petitioner preferred Appeal No. 1 of 2025 before the DRT
against the Order dated 10.12.2024 in TRC No. 155 of 2022.
xiii. The DRT vide its Order dated 14.02.2025 directed the
Petitioner to make a pre-deposit within 7 days, failing which,
both Appeal No. 1 of 2025 and TMA No. 23 of 2024 would be
dismissed.
xiv. The Petitioner, on 20.02.2025, filed Misc. Appeal No. 39/2025,
and 40/2025 before the DRAT, New Delhi against this Order
dated 14.02.2025 passed by the DRT.
xv. Respondent No. 14, the Receiver appointed by the DRT, issued
a letter dated 27.02.2025 demanding the Petitioner to vacate
and hand-over the peaceful possession of the Property in
Question.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 4 of 15

xvi. The DRAT, in Misc. Appeal No. 39/2025 & 40/2025, vide its
Order dated 28.02.2025, declined to entertain the appeals in
absence of the pre-deposit as envisaged in Section 21 of the
RDB Act. The DRAT pro vide d four weeks to deposit the said
pre-deposit, on failure of which, the appeals shall automatically
stand dismissed.
xvii. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition against this
Order of DRAT dated 28.02.2025, and the Order dated
14.02.2025, passed by the DRT in Appeal No. 1 of 2025 and
TMA No. 23 of 2024.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent No.
1 issued a notice dated 29.02.2016 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002 to directors of Respondent No. 3 but the said notice was neither
issued to Late Mr. Prakash Srivastava, nor to his legal heirs. The Respondent
No. 1 approached the DRT, Delhi – 3 by way of filing O.A. No. 30 of 2017
against a dead person.
5. The Learned Counsel further states that the DRT, Delhi – 3, passed
final order dated 23.08.2019 against a dead person. Further, the Learned
Recovery Officer vide order dated 03.07.2024, while adjudicating upon the
recovery proceedings in TRC No. 155 of 2022, emanating from the order
dated 23.08.2019, in an illegal manner impleaded the legal heirs of Late Mr.
Prakash Srivastava, and issued a sale proclamation notice qua the sole
residential house of the Petitioner.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner only
gained knowledge of such proceedings on 31.07.2024 when the Petitioner
received the said sale proclamation notice.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 5 of 15

7. He further states that the Respondent No. 1 had illegally initiated
proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before the
District Magistrate, Gurugram, seeking directions to obtain possession of the
Property in Question. The said proceedings were initiated after the death of
the Petitioner’s husband, and that too, without issuance of notice under
Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in the name of the Petitioner’s late
husband or the Petitioner.
8. The Petitioner preferred an application dated 03.01.2024 under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before DRT-2, New Delhi, titled as
Suman Srivastava vs. Union Bank of India bearing S.A. No. 4 of 2024. The
Respondent Bank appearing on instructions admitted that illegality had been
committed in issuance of notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and
had thereby withdrawn the said notice qua the Property in Question.
9. The Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was neither
the borrower of the credit facilities from Respondent No. 1 nor any debt was
due to be realized from the Petitioner. Therefore, she is not liable to make
any pre-deposit either before the DRT under Section 30-A of the RDB Act
while preferring Appeal No. 1 of 2025 or before the DRAT under Section 21
of the RDB Act in Misc. Appeal No. 39 and 40 of 2025.
10. The Counsel for the Petitioner states that the proceedings of recovery
against the legal heirs of Late Mr. Prakash Srivastava, emanating from final
order in O.A. No. 30 of 2017 were not maintainable against the Petitioner as
the original proceedings against the late husband of the Petitioner were not
maintainable against him in the first place as he had expired prior to the
institution of the O.A. and no steps were taken by Respondent No. 1 Bank to
implead the legal heirs of the deceased husband of the Petitioner in the said
O.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 6 of 15

11. The Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Impugned Judgement is
contrary to judgement passed in J. Veeraiah and Others v. Indian Overseas
Bank, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 633 & Ashok Transport Agency vs.
Awadesh Kumar and Anr., (1998) 5 SCC 567 .
12. The Counsel for the Petitioner states that the recovery officer had no
authority to implead a new party to the recovery proceedings when the said
person was never a party to the O.A. proceedings before the DRT. The said
impleadment was also barred by limitation.
13. The Counsel for the Petitioner states that in absence of service under
Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, any subsequent
actions are a nullity. He submits Sheeba Philominal Merlin and Ors. vs. The
Repatriates Co-op Finance and Development Bank Ltd. (Govt. of India
Enterprise) and Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 4286 .
14. Per contra, the Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 states that the
Petitioner was aware about the proceedings much before 31.07.2024, that is
when the sale proclamation notice was served upon her. He states that the
stand taken by the Petitioner is contrary to material on record. DRT in
TRC/155/2022 vide its order dated 10.12.2024 has given a finding that the
Petitioner was aware of the proceedings and she received the demand notice
from the Respondent No. 1 Bank on 28.01.2020 which is reflected in the
service affidavit which reads as under:-
― 2.2 The memo of parties as provided in the Recovery
Certificate provides the name and addresses of CD 7 (
Son), CD 12 ( Son) and CD 11 ( deceased father Sh
Prakash Srivastava and the A-3, South City-I,
Gurugaon, Haryana is the common address for all
three of them. On record is available affidavit of
service of demand notice filed by Union Bank of India
vide Dy. No. 1293 dated 30.01 .2020 which provides
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 7 of 15

that DASTI has been attempted by CH Bank. In their
affidavit of service it has been recorded at para 4, ' To
serve the notice to CD?, CD 11 and CD 12, I went to
the address at A-3, South City - I, Gurugaon on
28.01.2020. Upon reaching the said address I met the
mother of Anuj Srivastava received the said notice. The
notice was also pasted at the premises and
photographs taken. Receiving as well as photographs
is attached as Annex - 3 (colly).’ The affidavit has been
signed by Sh Purusottam kumar Sinha the then Chief
Manager of Union Bank of India. Hence submission
made by the counsel appearing for the Objector/their
application that they came to know about recovery
proceedings on service of sale proclamation notice on
31 .07.2024 for the first time and that they were not
aware of the Recovery Proceedings is not backed by
facts as per the affidavit/s filed by CH bank.
2.2.1 On record is also available service report of
settling sale notice on the subject property filed vide
Dy No. 6271 dated 13.09.2022. Para 7 of the said
service report filed under affidavit signed by Shri Anil
Kumar Pal the then Chief Manager of Union Bank
provides,' 7. That as per the said report, the CD No 7,
11 & 12 were duly served through on 23.06.2022, as
no one opened the gate of the premises No. A-3, South
City –I, Gurugram, Haryana, accordingly notice was
pasted on the main door of the said premises and the
photographs were taken, the same are annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure- CH-116.‖
15. The Counsel further states that the Petitioner being the legal heir of
the guarantor, it was her duty to inform the Respondent Bank about the
death of that guarantor. Being aware of the legal proceedings and yet
choosing to not inform the Bank about the death of her husband, the
Petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the situation which she
herself orchestrated to delay the recovery of dues by the Bank.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 8 of 15

16. The Counsel further states that the Petitioner has concealed material
documents which indicates that the notice dated 29.02.2016 being
ADV/GWIP/2016 and ADV/GWIPL/2016 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 was served to the Petitioner. The possession notice was also served on
03.10.2017. Further, the demand notice dated 01.06.2022 was also served at
the address of the Petitioner. Even the sons of the deceased, upon whom the
said notice was served, failed to notify the Bank about the death of their
father.

17. The Counsel also informed this Court about a writ petition filed by the
Petitioner being CWP No. 23288 of 2023 (O&M) which was dismissed on
13.10.2023 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court with the observation that
the Petitioner herein is trying to delay the recovery proceedings and thus the
Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The said petition was filed by the Petitioner for quashing of sale notice dated
06.09.2023, whereby the secured asset/Property in Question was put up for
sale allegedly in violation of Code 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act,
2016. Paragraphs No.8 to 11 reads as under:-
― 9. Argument raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent-bank had taken a U-turn
after agreeing to the course of action as recorded in
order dated 05.11.2020 in CM Nos. 8834, 9165, 9819-
CWP of J020 in CWP-19066-2019, is absolutely
devoid of any merit in view of subsequent order dated
12.11.2021, whereby proceedings in all the
miscellaneous applications filed with CWP-19066-
2019 were closed. COCP-2831-2021 alleging willful
disobedience and non-compliance of order dated
05.11.2020 was admittedly dismissed as withdrawn. It
is to be noted that petitioner has also not revealed in
the present writ petition that CWP-3537-2022 was filed
by Anurag Srivastava son of late Shri Parkash
Srivastava (i.e. son of petitioner) along with others
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 9 of 15

challenging notice dated 08.02.2022, issued by
Tehsildar, Gurugram, for taking over physical
possession of the asset in question with a further
prayer to comply with the so called
arrangement/undertaking as recorded in order dated
05.11.2020 and implement the OTS as noted in order
dated 03.02.2020 in CWP-35058-2019 by extending
the time period for compliance thereof. Said writ
petition we have now come to know, is still pending
adjudication. Argument raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner that present proceedings are illegal and
unjustified in view of the arrangement of Resolution
Professional (RP) and pendency of insolvency
proceedings is again devoid of any merit, hence
rejected. Petitioner admittedly has efficacious alternate
remedy for redressal of the grievance(s), which have
been raised in this writ petition.
10 . Narration of the facts in the foregoing paras
reveals that only effort of the petitioner is to somehow
delay recovery proceedings. It is a settled position that
interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be
restricted to extremely exceptional or extra ordinary
cases. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of
India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC
110 and Mis South Inman Bank Ltd. and others v.
Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023(2) RCR
(Civil) 771. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has
consistently held that there should be no interference in
proceedings under SARFAESI Act until and unless
exceptional or extra ordinary circumstance(s) is/are
pointed out. No such exceptional circumstance has
been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner
in this case which calls for intervention. To the
contrary, we find that material facts have been detailed
in the present writ petition and are sought to be
presented in a veiled fashion.
11 . Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as
above, we do not find any ground whatsoever to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 10 of 15

interfere in this writ petition which is accordingly
dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory
remedy/remedies as may be available to her in
accordance with law for redressal of the grievance as
raised in this writ petition.‖
18. The Counsel further states that the non-impleadment of the Petitioner
would not lead to failure of the auction proceedings as the estate of the
deceased Mr. Prakash Srivastava was well represented by his two sons, who
were always party to the DRT proceedings initiated by the Respondent
Bank.

19. The Counsel states that since the Property in Question is a mortgaged
property, the only right of the Petitioner and the two sons of the Petitioner
has, is the right of redemption. The same has not been availed by them.
Therefore, the Petitioner and her sons have only orchestrated the present
dispute to delay the proceedings.
20. Heard the Counsels for both sides and perused the material on record.
21. This Court is of the opinion that that issues which have been
attempted to be raised by both the parties would not be germane and,
therefore, does not call for much discussion. The short question which arises
in this case is as to whether the impugned judgment, refusing to entertain the
appeal without the pre-deposit as mandated under Section 21 of the RDB
Act, requires interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not.
22. Section 21 of the RDB Act, though has been quoted in the impugned
Judgment, is once again reproduced for ready reference and the same reads
as under:
" 21 . Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal.—
Where an appeal is preferred by any person from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 11 of 15

whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a
financial institution or a consortium of banks or
financial institutions, such appeal shall not be
entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such
person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal 3
[fifty per cent.] of the amount of debt so due from him
as determined by the Tribunal under section 19:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, 4 [reduce the amount to be
deposited by such amount which shall not be less than
twenty-five per cent. of the amount of such debt so due]
to be deposited under this section. "

23. The DRAT has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in
Kotak Mahindra Bank (P) Ltd. v. Ambuj A. Kasliwal, (2021) 3 SCC 549,
which has held that any waiver of pre-deposit would be against the statutory
provisions which cannot be sustained. In the said judgment, the Apex Court
stayed the judgment of High Court which had waived the requirement of
pre-deposit. In its judgment in Kotak (supra) the Apex Court has placed
reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh
v. UCO Bank, (2011) 4 SCC 548 , which dealt with analogous provision
being 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, wherein the Apex Court had held that
the requirement of pre-deposit could not be waived.
24. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Invent Assets Securitization &
Reconstruction Private Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7296, while dealing
with the very same issue has observed as under:
" 6. It is a trite law that the remedy of an appeal is a
statutory right and therefore, is circumscribed by the
relevant statute. In Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v.
Collector of Customs, (1988) 4 SCC 402, the Supreme
observed as under:—

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 12 of 15

―9. Right to appeal is neither an absolute right
nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles
of which must be followed in all judicial and
quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal
is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by
the conditions in the grant.‖"
25. In view of the abovementioned judgments, this Court is of the opinion
that the judgment of the Tribunal does not require any interference by this
Court.
26. Further, material on record indicates that the Petitioner being the wife
of the deceased Mr. Prakash Srivastava, resides in the Property in Question
along with her two sons who were parties to the DRT proceedings. The
notice dated 29.02.2016 was served upon the two sons of the Petitioner at
the same address where their mother, who is the Petitioner herein, also
resides. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Petitioner was not aware of the
recovery proceedings in DRT.
27. The Petitioner had full knowledge of the date of hearing in the
proceedings before DRT. Nevertheless, the Petitioner, as well as the other
legal representatives of the deceased, i.e. Respondent Nos. 9 and 13, failed
to apprise the Respondent Bank regarding the death of their father.
Moreover, the said parties even failed to appear in the proceedings before
DRT, consequentially failing to inform the tribunal about the death of Mr.
Prakash Srivastava in order to allow the tribunal to implead all the legal
representatives in accordance with law.
28. Material on record shows that the two sons of the Petitioner were
arrayed as parties before the DRT and they did not inform the DRT about
the debt of the Petitioner. The Petitioner and her sons had been also
individually approaching various forums being fully aware of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 13 of 15

proceedings before the DRT. The Petitioner has, therefore, come with a
dishonest plea that she was not aware of the proceedings before the DRAT.
Be that as it may, that issue is not very germane to the matter. The issue
before this Court is as to whether the DRAT was correct in rejecting the
appeal of the Petitioner on the issue of pre-deposit or not. The property in
question is mortgaged to the bank. The decree is to be satisfied by the sale of
the property in question. Viewed in that perspective, Section 21 would
automatically apply to the Petitioner as she seeks to save the property which
stands mortgaged to the bank.
29. The submission of the Petitioner that since the notice in the O.A. was
not served upon the Petitioner, the entire proceedings is to be held as a
nullity does not hold merit as the estate (Property in Question) was well
represented by the two sons of the Petitioner, who also inherited the
Property in Question after the death of their father, Mr. Prakash Srivastava.
Moreover, the Petitioner was well aware of the proceedings throughout its
pendency as she resides in the very same address where the notices were
served upon her two sons.
30. The argument of the Petitioner that she is neither a borrower or a
guarantor and, therefore, is not liable to submit the pre-deposit does not hold
merit. It is an admitted position of the Petitioner that she is a legal
representative of the deceased guarantor and has inherited the Property in
Question. Therefore, the liability of the deceased guarantor to repay the debt
shall fall upon the Petitioner, and her two sons, i.e., Respondent No. 9 and
13, who were party to the DRT proceedings.
31. The plea of the Petitioner that the Respondent Bank revoked the
notice u/s 13(2) dated 29.02.2016, and which revocation has been recorded
in order dated 09.01.2024 in S.A. No. 4 of 2024 is of no consequence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 14 of 15

32. Material on record indicates that the Respondent Bank has issued a
fresh notice dated 18.05.2025 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, at the
address of the Petitioner, after gaining knowledge of the fact that the
husband of the Petitioner has passed away. The Petitioner has 60 days from
the date of issuance of the said notice to fulfil its liabilities.
33. This Court is of the firm opinion that the Petitioner has not filed the
present Writ Petition with clean hands as there is clear e vide nce against the
pleas taken by her. In light of such concealment of facts, this Court does not
deem it, at all necessary, to interfere with the proceedings before DRT.

34. The present writ petition is dismissed with the said findings along
with pending application(s).

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J

JULY 24, 2025
RJ/MT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:24.07.2025
19:39:52
W.P.(C) 5165/2025 Page 15 of 15