SHALINI KHANNA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. Counsel for the respondent No.1 accepts notice.

(2.) In view of the order that we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to direct issuance of notice to the respondents No.2 to 5.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in Appeal No. 468/2017 arising out of OA No.295/2014 (DRT-II, Delhi). The said appeal has been preferred by the respondent-Bank of Baroda. The Original Application No. 295/2014 preferred by the respondent no.1 has been allowed by the DRT vide order dated 12.10.2017. The petitioner herein is defendant no.5 in the said Original Application. So far as the petitioner is concerned, DRT has held that the mortgage of the property of the petitioner herein was not valid. However, she has been found jointly and severely liable along with the defendant nos. 1 to 4 to the extent of Rs.2,95,74,316/- along with simple pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the original application, till realization.