Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by an applicant before the DRT, Jaipur was dismissed as the applicant did not appear. The court also dismissed all pending intermediate applications due to absence.
MA dismissed; pending IAs disposed of.
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. 13
Case No.MA/53/2025 IN SA/708/2024
RAJKUMAR NAGPAL Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA
Date: 23.07.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
None for the applicant
Ms. Suman Choudhary, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, none appears for the applicant even after pass over, counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that they have moved an application four months back for seeking one month extension for deposit of money.
Neither the payment has been made, nor are they appearing.
As none appears for the applicant, therefore, Accordingly, MA stands dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Rajkumar Nagpal
Union Bank of India
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
