Smt. Motim Sahu Vs Bank of Baroda

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal and consideration.

¶18

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and thereby pass an order to consider and decide the appeal bearing 15 of 2025 preferred on

¶19

Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.02.19
13:22:52
+0530

¶20

2

¶21

10.06.2025 which is pending before the presiding officer in a time bound manner ANNEXURE P 1

¶22

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and thereby pass an order to consider and decide the chamber appeal bearing preferred by the petitioner on 26.09.2025 in the appeal bearing 15 of 2025 pending before the presiding officer in a time bound manner ANNEXURE P 2

¶23

10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and thereby pass an order to consider and decide the review dated 10.10.2025 preferred by the petitioner in appeal bearing 15 of 2025 pending before the registrar in a time bound manner ANNEXURE P 3

¶24

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper. in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide Order dated 16.5.2025 passed by Recovery Officer – II, The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, auction sale of the subject property of the petitioner has been confirmed, which has been challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal on 05.6.2025 bearing Appeal No.15/2025 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur. The petitioner also deposited mandatory deposit as provided under Section 30A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, ‘Act 1993’), but vide Order dated 29.8.2025, Registrar of DRT, Jabalpur has held that mandatory deposit is not sufficient as per the law. This order has also been challenged by the petitioner by filing Chamber Appeal under Sub Rule (5) of Rule 5 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, but that Chamber Appeal has also not been decided. Review application of that order has also not been decided, whereas, attachment and auction sale of the subject property of the petitioner has been made dehoring the provisions of the Act 1993 as well as relevant rules. Hence, learned

¶26

3

¶27

counsel for the petitioner submits that DRT, Jabalpur may be directed to decide appeal as well as Chamber appeal filed by the petitioner within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶28

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has no objection to the limited prayer of the petitioner.

¶29

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

5. Appeal bearing No.15/2025 was filed by the petitioner on 05.6.2025 before DRT, Jabalpur. It is the expectation of all the appellants that their cases be decided expeditiously as he/she has been deprived from subject property as auction sale of that property has already been made. Having considered aforesaid facts and limited prayer of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of directing DRT, Jabalpur to decide Appeal No.15/2025 (Smt. Motim Sahu vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr.) as well as Chamber Appeal filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, so that grievance of the petitioner may be redressed.

¶31

6. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Bini

Smt. Motim Sahu v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Motim Sahu v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dogendra Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramadhin Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bank of Baroda Vs the Collector and District Magistrate

Shankar Lal Agrawal (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shana Vaswani Vs Municipal Corporation Raipur