The DRT dismissed a stay application because the copy of the stay order could not be supplied. The court held that non-compliance warrants dismissal, discharging all pending interim applications.
Stay application dismissed; all pending interim applications disposed off.
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. 33
Case No.SA/375/2025
RAJESH KUMAR Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA
Date: 10.09.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Annirudh Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Mohit Choudhary, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, the copy of SA has not been supplied on the pretext that matter is under settlement.
For non-compliance of not supplying the copy of SA, this SA deserves to be dismissed.
Counsel for the applicant explains the reason for non supply of copy of SA as the bank has proceeded with further notices to which he wants to challenge by amendment. But, Counsel for the Respondent bank submits that the SA should have been supplied.
With these submissions, SA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, SA stands disposed of as 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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a stay application can proceed when the applicant refuses to supply the copy of the order as under settlement.
RAJESH KUMAR
UNION BANK OF INDIA
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
