Dismissed

Sangeeta Grover v. Bank of Baroda

DRT28 Jul 2025MA/205/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur dismissed a Maintenance Application filed by an applicant against Bank of Baroda restoring the matter via review. The Court noted the applicant's failure to disclose a property sale and denied an extension to remove articles from the premises.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance application dismissed; all pending internal applications disposed of. Three hours granted to remove articles before possession transfer.

Sangeeta Grover versus Bank of Baroda — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Supp. Item No. 02

¶3

Case No. MA 205/2022

¶4

¶5

TSA/36/2021

¶6

SANGEETA GROVER VS BANK OF BARODA

¶7

Date: 28.07.2025

¶8

Proceedings through hybrid mode:

¶9

Present:

¶10

Shri Naresh Batra, Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Shri R N Vijay, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶12

This MA is restored through Review Application filed by the applicant and is taken up today.

¶13

This matter has got a checkered history. TSA filed was dismissed on merits. There was a review application being filed having no. 18/2022 wherein they had requested that they will bring a buyer for the settlement. There was a stay directing the bank to not to take possession till 26.09.2022, thereafter MA was filed.

¶14

Though, various liberties were given while disposing the RA no. 18/2022, but according to the counsel for the bank, the property was already sold and the applicant has not approached with clean hands.

¶15

Counsel for the applicant requests that he is only representing one of the applicant in MA, Mrs. Sangeeta Grover. Possession of property situated at Rana Pratap Bagh is to be taken tomorrow. They seek indulgence of this Court and seek time to remove the articles.

¶16

The Court Commissioner shall given three hours time to remove the articles, but the possession will be taken as per orders passed by Ld. CMM only and as per his notice only, i.e. on 29.07.2025

¶17

If the applicant wishes to have more time, they are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

¶18

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶19

While dismissing this MA, the Tribunal was not happy with the way, the applicant/applicants have been trying to misuse by filing RA, MA then again RA. If they were aggrieved or even if they are aggrieved by any action, they will have to prefer a fresh Securitization Application.

¶20

For not disclosing the facts of sale of the property as well filing the SA, the cost was to be imposed however at request of the Counsel for the applicant no cost is imposed.

¶21

Accordingly, MA stands dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.

¶22

File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶23

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

Sangeeta Grover v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Grover v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sumit Kumar Palsaniya

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Shree Mahalaxmi Steels

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Mahendra Alias Mahendra Singh

Yes Bank versus Papu Ram Singh

Mr Vishnu Sharma versus Srg Housing Finance Limited

Sangeeta Grover versus Bank of Baroda