In this matter, counsel for the applicant alleged non-issuance of Rule 8(6) notice and defects in auction cancellation, challenging notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal allowed the application and restored the secured appeal.
MA allowed; SA restored to original number and listed before Registrar on 28.05.2025.
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. 38
Case No. MA/54/2025 IN SA/754/2024 SUNITA DEVI RAO Vs AAVAS FINANCIERS LTD
Date: 23.04.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri R N Vijay, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Sharad Joshi, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, counsel for the applicant submits that during the course of the argument, it was observed that Rule 8(6) notice has not been given and while cancelling the auction, entire SA came to be disposed where according to him, he has also challenged the Notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4).
Therefore MA stands disposed of as allowed. SA stands restored to its original number and be listed before Registrar on 28.05.2025.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the application regarding deficiency in service under Rule 8(6) notice and errors in auction cancellation.
Whether to dismiss the petitions challenging notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4).
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SUNITA DEVI RAO
AAVAS FINANCIERS LTD
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
