KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 20/12/2024 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 359/2024.

(2.) The short submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers of the mortgaged property had preferred an appeal before the learned DRAT which has been dismissed, on an erroneous presumption, that no appeal was maintainable at their behest. Consequently, the petitioners' appeal stands rejected by the learned DRAT without even examining the merits of their challenge to the order dtd. 13/12/2024 passed by the learned DRT. He submits that the petitioners were always ready and willing to comply with the condition of pre-deposit and therefore prays that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned DRAT for hearing of the petitioners' appeal on merits.

(3.) Issue notice. Ms. Seema Gupta and Mr. Sidharth Chopra accept notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to 5, respectively. Both Ms. Gupta and Mr. Chopra fairly submit that the appeal filed at the behest of the petitioners as subsequent purchasers of the mortgaged property was maintainable before the learned DRAT. Ms. Gupta, however, submits that the appeal has been dismissed by the learned DRAT on merits after duly considering the submissions of the petitioners. She contends that the plea of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the appeal has been rejected by the learned DRAT without examining the merits of the challenge to the Tribunal's order, is factually incorrect. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.