Vision Steel Limited And ORS v. State Bank Of India And ORS
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 476/2026 & CM APPL. 2336/2026 VISION STEEL LIMITED AND ORS .....Petitioners Through:
Counsel (appearance not given) versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. alongwith Aarav Raj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
O R D E R
% 15.01.2026 W.P.(C) 476/2026 1.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2251/2025 pending before the Learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and quash and set aside the order dated 10.12.2025, whereby the praecipe seeking urgent listing of the Petitioners' statutory appeal was disallowed;
b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records ofT.A. No. 350/2022 pending before the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi and quash and set aside the order dated 19 .12 .2025, whereby the Learned Tribunal Below proceeded to reserve the matter for final orders during the pendency of the Petitioners' statutory appeal; c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi to defer the pronouncement of final orders in T.A. No. 350/2022 till the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Petitioners' statutory appeal is heard and decided by the Learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal;
d. Issue an appropriate directions to the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to list and hear the Petitioners' statutory appeal expeditiously, so that the appropriate remedy is not rendered ineffective or illusory"
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi, (DRT) has fixed the matter for pronouncement of judgment on 17.01.2026. He contends that the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 31.10.2025, whereby the learned DRT has rejected the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for recall of the ex-parte proceedings, is presently pending adjudication before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and has not yet been heard. 3.
He further submits that in the event the judgment is pronounced by the DRT prior to the hearing and disposal of the aforesaid appeal by the DRAT, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. 4.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he has no objection if the appeal pending before the DRAT is taken up for hearing tomorrow.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also concurs with the said submission.
6.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to move an appropriate application before the DRAT seeking early hearing of the appeal. Upon such application being moved, the appellate authority shall take up the appeal and hear and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 7.
Till the disposal of the said appeal by the DRAT, the DRT shall not pronounce the judgment fixed for 17.01.2026.
8.
With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
9.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 10.
A copy of this Order be given dasti under the signatures of court master, as requested.
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J SHAIL JAIN, J JANUARY 15, 2026/rs/tr/kp The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.