CANARA BANK(ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK) vs KARISHMA ENTERPRISES AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 27.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 06.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 6494/2016 & CM APPL.4295/2025 CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK) ...Appellants Through: Ms. Anju Jain, Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Mr. Dev Inder Singh & Ms. Deeksha Kingrani, Advs. versus M/S KARISHMA ENTERPRISES & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pulkit Aggarwal, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The present Petition, filed by the Petitioner, assails the correctness of the order dated 02.03.2016 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”], Delhi, in Appeal No. 37/2016, titled M/s Karishma Enterprises & Anr. v. Syndicate Bank & Anr. 2. The issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the learned DRAT erred in failing to appreciate the prior conduct and explicit consent of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the sale of the mortgaged property as duly recorded in the learned Debt Recovery Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 WP(C) 6494/2016 Page 1 of 16 11:51:45 Tribunal’s [hereinafter referred to as “DRT”] order dated 16.04.2014 and in disregarding the fact that despite having consented to such directions, the Respondents nevertheless challenged the order in Appeal No. 303/2014, which was ultimately disposed of as not pressed and infructuous by the learned DRAT vide order dated 16.12.2014. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner Bank is a body corporate duly constituted under the Companies Act, 197