Published: · Source checked:
DRAT Delhi did not apportion sale proceeds or decide which title deeds were genuine in PNB Housing Finance v. State Bank of India. On 15 October 2026 it substituted Kotak Mahindra Bank as appellant and directed the institutions to resolve those disputes through conciliation or arbitration, with separate steps for appointment of an arbitrator. Order, paragraphs 1–7.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Delhi |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Case | Misc. Appeal 94/2019; I.A. 643/2026; O.A. 536/2014 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | PNB Housing Finance Limited v. State Bank of India and another; Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited substituted as appellant |
Substitution and the underlying dispute
I.A. 643/2026 sought substitution because PNB Housing Finance had assigned the debt to Kotak Mahindra Bank under a deed dated 4 March 2023. DRAT allowed Kotak to replace PNB Housing as appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal 94/2019, arising from O.A. 536/2014 before DRT-III, Delhi. Paragraphs 1–2.
That procedural substitution did not resolve the competing claims to the property or its proceeds. The dispute concerned apportionment of sale proceeds and the genuineness of the title deeds on which the institutions claimed rights. The source does not set out a final allocation or declare a particular institution's documents genuine or forged. Paragraphs 4–5.
Section 11 supplied the dispute-resolution route
DRAT treated the matter as a dispute involving two banks and a financial institution within Section 11 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It also referred to the Supreme Court decision named in paragraph 4. On that basis, it directed resolution through conciliation or arbitration. Paragraphs 4–5.
The underlying statutory text addresses specified disputes among the institutional parties it names. This order should therefore not be converted into a statement that every borrower, auction purchaser or third-party title dispute must be arbitrated under Section 11. This note reports DRAT's routing of this particular inter-institution controversy; it does not independently analyse every issue in the cited Supreme Court judgment.
What Kotak was directed to do
Paragraph 6 requires Kotak, as substituted appellant, to initiate appropriate proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator within eight weeks from upload of the order on the tribunal's website. That direction is to initiate the appointment process; it is not a statement that an arbitrator was already appointed or that a final award would be delivered within eight weeks. Original scanned page 2.
The upload trigger is material. Without a verified upload date this article does not calculate a final compliance date merely from the 15 October pronouncement. Nor does it report whether Kotak complied, an arbitrator was appointed or an award subsequently issued.
DRAT further stated that the impugned order dated 9 December 2016 should not influence the proposed arbitrator's decision or award, which was to be made according to law. The appeal and pending applications were disposed of. This preserved a fresh determination of the dispute through the directed process rather than importing an earlier outcome. Paragraphs 6–7.
How to read the result in a creditor file
A useful update should separately record the assignment/substitution, the institutions' competing substantive claims, the dispute-resolution route and the appointment step. Describing substitution as victory on entitlement confuses party status with merits. Describing the arbitration direction as an award likewise skips the process the order required.
The practical lesson is to match each reported outcome to an actual operative direction. Here, the order changed the appellant, identified a forum/process and specified a time-triggered next step. It did not distribute the sale proceeds or resolve the title-deed controversy.
Questions about the direction
Did Kotak receive the sale proceeds under this order?
No allocation is made. Kotak was substituted and directed to commence the appropriate appointment proceedings.
Did the eight weeks run from pronouncement?
The order specifies upload on the tribunal's website. The record of that event is needed before calculating the direction's endpoint. Paragraph 6.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 15 October 2026, paragraphs 1–7; original scanned pages 1–2. 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.