Dismissed

Institute for integrated Rural development v. Bank of Baroda

DRT21 Nov 2025SA/377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application seeking extension of time to deposit sale consideration. The applicant had previously promised that failure to pay by specified deadlines would result in the auction's confirmation and the SA's dismissal, but now requested time based on a proposed tripartite investment agreement, which the bank opposed.

What did the court decide?

The application for extension of time and the Settlement Assurance were dismissed.

Institute for integrated Rural development versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA/377/2024 INSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT Vs BANK OF BARODA

¶3

21.11.2025 Item No.38

¶4

Present:

¶5

Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Counsel for the Applicant along with Mr. L.C. Sharma, Managing Director of the Institute/in person. Mr. Sanjay Dlamia, (on VC) Counsel for respondent bank along with Mr. Ajay Singh Thakur, Manager law and Mr. Nagesh Chamola, Recovery Manager/BOB, in person. None for the auction purchaser.

¶6

In this case, the bank had auctioned the secured asset on 24.10.2025 for Rs.2.36 Crores. Till 04.11.2025 the auction purchaser had deposited 25% of the sale consideration. Despite that, the bank had not confirmed the auction. A sum of Rs.1.90 Crores was due. The bank is in possession. On 04.11.2025, applicant had made a statement that he would deposit Rs.60.00 Lacs on 20.11.2025 and Rs.40.00 Lacs on 01.12.2025 and the remaining sum on or before 20.12.2025. Counsel for the applicant had further submitted that in case the applicant fails to make any of the payment in time, the bank may confirm the auction and his SA would be deemed to have been dismissed. This arrangement was accepted by the bank as well as auction purchaser.

¶7

Today, counsel for the applicant states that she has moved an application for extension of time on the ground that applicant had approached the bank with an investor with a request to enter into tripartite agreement, that the investor is ready to make the whole of the payment in one shot.

¶8

Counsel for the bank is present. He states that the proposal of the applicant is not acceptable to the bank. He states that there has been auction in this matter and the question of having any sale by private treaty does not arise.

¶9

I am of the considered view, that the application is wholly misconceived. On 04.11.2025, applicant had made a statement that in case he fails to make the payment, the bank may confirm the auction and his SA would be deemed to have been dismissed. Accordingly, I dismiss the application filed by the applicant and consequently as per order dated 04.11.2025, SA is also dismissed . Whereas, counsel for the applicant states that a sum of Rs.1.73 Crores is due from the bank as per the e-mail received by the bank; counsel for the bank disputes this fact.

¶10

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶11

Pronounced in open Court 21.11.2025 PANKAJ

¶12

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

Institute for integrated Rural development v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Institute for integrated Rural development v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S M M Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S Era Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Lakhvir Singh

M/S Jaspal Singh and Sons versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Sri Sailesh Shrestha versus State Bank of India

Ms Khan Enterprise Proprietor MD Sabir Ahmed versus Icici Bank Limited