The Presiding Officer dismissed the Misc. Application filed by the applicant seeking refund of court fees in the context of a withdrawn Securitization Application and the issue of symbolic versus physical possession.
Prayer for refund of court fees dismissed; applicant allowed to file Securitization Application.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 48
Case No.MA/176/2025 IN SA/672/2023
MS GAWACHI PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTORS Vs BANK OF BARODA
Date: 29.10.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri K S Gautam, Applicant in person
Shri Harjeet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
This Misc. Application has been filed by Sh. K S Gautam and he argued the matter. He submits that during the pendency of the SA no. 672/2023, the bank has withdrawn the proceedings and accordingly, the Securitization Application was disposed of with a direction that the expenses of the said action will not be debited in the account of the borrower. They were also directed to refund the court fees in the matter so, court fees be refunded that within two days from today and credited into the account of the borrower.
The applicant submits that while the first round of securitization action, the bank has taken physical possession which is denied by the counsel for the bank and submitted that they had only taken symbolic possession. The applicant further argued that there is no concept of symbolic possession and physical possession, the only word “possession” has been used in the Act.
The Law is very clear the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that symbolic possession is also a possession in terms of securitization action. The physical possession of the assets has been taken on 26.06.2025 pursuant to the notice under Section 13(2) dated 19.09.2024. Such proceedings have to be challenged by way of further Securitization Application being filed. The applicant submits that he has written letters to the bank to provide documents so that they can move a Securitization Application, that is between him and bank, the Tribunal will only look into the matter and substantial proceedings pending before the Tribunal.
In view of the above, this Misc. Application has no relevance for the subsequent action of the bank though the applicant submits that the Tribunal has all the powers to pass appropriate orders subsequent to SA. According to the bank counsel all the actions have been taken in pursuant to notice dated 19.09.2024.
Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
The applicant will be at liberty to file the Securitization Application within the limitation as per law.
Accordingly, this Misc. Application stands dismissed. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to refund of court fees and dismissal of the application regarding deposit account closure.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MS Gawachi Products Distributors
Bank of Baroda
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
