Applicant alleged the respondent bank failed to reply to a 13(3-A) notice involving security. Tribunal held the bank's silence precludes validity, quashed subsequent proceedings, and allowed the bank 15 days to file a reply.
Securitisation Application disposed. All proceedings after 13(3-A) notice quashed. Bank given 15 days to file reply.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET
| 05.06 Sr. N |
.2024 o.56 SA No. 155/ 2024 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Classifi cation |
No. of Exh. |
|
| SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.155 of 2024 Girish Hansraj Ahuja ..Applicant Versus State Bank of India, Main Branch Dhule ..Respondents Mr. S.R. Vakil - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.G. Deokate - Advocate for the respondent. The matter is taken through Hybrid. 1. In this matter the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that they have given objection under 13(3-A) which has not been replied by the respondent bank. 2. The counsel appears for the respondent bank has given time to place the reply and the mode of communication |
||
| on record. He submits that he has not seen those | ||
| documents till date. 3. In this highly digitalised world where the document can sent in seconds, sufficient time has been given. This shows that the bank has not given any reply to 13(3-A) notice. The presumption goes against the bank because they have failed to place the documents on record. |
||
| 4. In view of this, all proceedings taken subsequent to the |
[SBJ] (SA No.155/2024) Page 1 of 2
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
said 13(3-A) notice are stand quashed.
5. The bank will be at liberty to file reply to 13 (3-A) notice
within 15 days from today and proceed ahead.
6. In view of the above, I pass the following order.
ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.155/2024 stands
disposed off.
B. All proceedings taken subsequent to the said 13(3-A)
notice are stand quashed.
C. The bank will be at liberty to file reply to 13 (3-A) notice
within 15 days from today and proceed ahead.
D. File be consigned to the record room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad
[SBJ] (SA No.155/2024) Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether subsequent proceedings after a 13(3-A) notice remain valid if the bank fails to reply within a stipulated time.
Whether the applicant can seek quashing of proceedings initiated after the bank's default in replying to the 13(3-A) notice.
Girish Hansraj Ahuja
State Bank of India, Main Branch Dhule
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
