In an original application filed in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, the appellant's counsel appeared with no representation of the respondent bank. The court dismissed the application for lack of grounds to stay proceedings, noting the absence of a limitation extension application and lack of serve proof for defendants.
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. 55
Case No.MA/54/2024 IN OA/482/2021
ASH STEEL HUB Vs ICICI BANK LIMITED
Date: 22.07.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present:
None for the Applicant
Shri Akash Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, copy of MA has not been supplied to the counsel for the respondent bank. It is submitted that in the pleadings that the defendants were not served summons. It is further submitted that they are sincere to repay the financial liabilities. There is nothing on record to show as and when they received the summons and how they came to know about the pendency of this proceeding or the final orders.
Counsel for the respondent bank submits that applicants are appearing before the Ld. Recovery officer since long. There is no application under Section 5 of the limitation Act.
There is no ground to stay the recovery proceedings, therefore, 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
ASH STEEL HUB
ICICI BANK LIMITED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
