Published: · Source checked:
An earlier deposit and interim possession protection were separate issues in Laxmi Mishra v. Indian Bank. On 27 October 2026, DRAT allowed an unrefunded ₹10-lakh deposit to count in the new appeal, then required a prompt DRT stay decision with status quo until then. It did not grant indefinite protection from possession. Order, paragraphs 2–4 and 9–10.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Allahabad; Chairperson holding additional charge |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Case | Misc. Appeal Diary 2600/2026; I.A. 1629/2026; S.A. 535/2023 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | Smt. Laxmi Mishra v. Indian Bank |
Why the existing deposit could be used
I.A. 1629/2026 sought relief concerning pre-deposit. The appellant relied on ₹10 lakh lodged in an earlier appeal, Diary 2065/2026, and stated that it had not been refunded. DRAT examined the record, noted that the amount had not been claimed back, and directed that it be treated as pre-deposit in the present appeal. Counsel also stated that a further ₹2 lakh had been deposited. Paragraphs 1–4.
The order does not establish a general right to reuse any deposit between unrelated proceedings. The relevant features here were an identifiable earlier appellate deposit, the fact that it remained with the tribunal, and an express direction crediting it to this appeal. The decision should not be rewritten as a complete waiver without reference to those funds.
The source recites dates and draft details that are not necessary to this point. This note does not infer an exact historical payment chronology or adopt the appellant's asserted percentage of the demand as a separate tribunal finding.
The unresolved stay application
The appeal also concerned possession-related proceedings in S.A. 535/2023. An earlier appellate order had allowed an interim-protection application before DRT within a specified period and had granted limited status quo. The parties disputed the effect and duration of that protection. The appellant complained that DRT had not decided the application. Paragraphs 5–9.
DRAT concluded that DRT-Allahabad was required to decide the stay application filed following the earlier appellate direction. This was a problem of an undecided application, rather than an appellate adjudication that the bank could never take possession. Paragraph 9.
What the fresh direction actually protected
Paragraph 10 directed DRT-Allahabad to decide the stay application within one week from 27 October 2026, with status quo in respect of the property maintained until then. It expressly added that, if the stay application were decided against the appellant, the bank would be free to take appropriate possession proceedings immediately. Original scanned page 3.
The condition is part of the relief, not a minor qualification. A note saying that DRAT stayed possession would be incomplete without the short decision period and the consequence of an adverse stay ruling. This article does not report whether the DRT later granted relief or whether possession was subsequently taken.
Two entries that should remain separate in the file
For the deposit issue, preserve the original deposit record, the absence of refund and the order carrying the amount into the new appeal. For interim protection, preserve the stay application, the direction requiring its decision and the event ending the protection. Treating both as one general appellate win can obscure the next procedural step.
This is an application of the order's structure to case management. It is not a statement that every undecided stay application extends protection automatically, or that an earlier appellate deposit always transfers without a fresh order.
Questions about the direction
Was the ₹10 lakh refunded or treated as payment of the debt?
Neither is the operative direction. It was treated as pre-deposit in the present appeal because it had not been claimed back. Paragraphs 3–4.
Was the bank barred from possession indefinitely?
No. The fresh direction was tied to a prompt DRT stay decision and expressly preserved possession proceedings if that application failed. Paragraph 10.
For the separate statutory appellate threshold, see Jiffy Realtors on Section 18 pre-deposit for procedural appeals. The transfer of an existing deposit here should not be confused with a universal waiver of that requirement.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 27 October 2026, paragraphs 1–10; original scanned pages 1–3. The analysis reports that decision as delivered. Primary source and statutory references were checked on 1 November 2026; later treatment has not been exhaustively established. No absence of an appeal, stay, variation or subsequent compliance is asserted.