Disposed

Jai Ambika Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Union Bank of India

DRT1 Oct 2025SA/6/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of the Securitisation Application after the respondent bank withdrew the Section 13(2) notice and subsequent actions. The court permitted the applicant to file a fresh application for any future actions initiated by the bank.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No.6/2023 was disposed of; applicants are at liberty to file a fresh SA against future actions initiated by the bank.

Jai Ambika Ginning and Pressing Factory versus Union Bank of… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶2

01.10.2025

¶3

S	r. No	.24 SA No.6/2023
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.6/2023
		Jai Ambika Ginning And Pressing Factory ..Applicant/s Versus Union Bank of India ..Respondent/s Mr. K.B. Deshpande - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.A. Mishra - Advocate for the respondent- bank.
		1. In this matter the respondent bank has
		moved Pursis Exhibit-8 alleging that
		respondent bank has withdrawn the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the action thereafter and nothing survives in
		the present matter due to some technical
		reasons and intimation regarding
		withdrawal of the action has been conveyed to the applicants.
		2. It is further submitted that after withdrawal
		of the entire action by the bank, the present
		application is not maintainable as the SA
		No.6/2023 challenged the action initiated by

¶4

[SBJ] (SA No.6/2023) Page 1 of 3

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶6

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶7

ORDER SHEET

¶8

the bank arising from the said Demand Notice and prayed for disposing of the Securitisation Application.

¶9

1. On the otherside, the applicants filed reply alleging therein that the applicants have received a fresh notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act during the pendency of this SA and they can seek the amendment in the SA and the bank has made misleading statement in the pursis that nothing survives in the present matter and further the submission of the applicants submitted in the reply has also taken on record.

¶10

1. The respondent bank has withdrawn the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and actions thereafter meaning thereby that the respondent bank can proceed further against the applicants only after the decision of this Tribunal on the pursis filed by the bank. Therefore, the applicants are at liberty to challenge the every action of the respondent bank if initiated after passing of this order by filing fresh SA and no prejudice

¶11

[SBJ] (SA No.6/2023) Page 2 of 3

¶12

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶13

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶14

ORDER SHEET

¶15

of any manner would be caused on the basis
of the disposal of the present SA on account
of withdrawal of the demand notice and
actions taken thereafter by the bank. The
respondent bank is also at liberty to initiate
the proceeding if requires only after passing of this order.
5. In view of the above observations, I pass the following order. ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.6/2023 is
disposed of as demand notice and
proceedings based thereon have been withdrawn by the bank.
B. However, the applicants are at liberty to file fresh Securitisation Application against any action of the respondent bank initiated after passing of this order.
C. All the pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
D. File be consigned to the record room. Sd/- (Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶16

[SBJ] (SA No.6/2023) Page 3 of 3

Jai Ambika Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Ambika Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Shivaji Anna Dindale

Mr Gaurav Kantilal Gangwal versus The Authorised Officer Shriram Housing Finance Limited

Shabnam Shaikh Irfan versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

Social Welfare Department versus Bank of Maharashtra

Punjab National Bank versus Vrushali Vijay Patil

Union Bank of India versus Vishwanath Ramchandra Waditke