This DRT order quashed actions taken by the respondent bank following receipt of a Section 13(3-A) notice, directing non-debit of expenses and granting the bank 15 days to decide objections.
All actions by the bank after receipt of 13(3-A) were quashed; expenses were not to be debited; the applicant was granted 15 days to decide objections.
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. 53
Case No.SA/385/2025
ZAHID HUSAIN Vs EDELWEISS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
Date: 18.09.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present:
Shri R K Bhargav, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, counsel for the respondent bank fairly admits that objection under Section 13(3-A) were not decided by the bank.
In view of the above, all the actions taken by the bank after receipts of 13(3-A) stands quashed and expenses shall not be debited in the account of the applicant.
The Respondent bank is at liberty to now decide those objections within 15 days from today. Accordingly, this Securitization Application stands disposed of.
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 the bank's decision not to decide objections under Section 13(3-A) required quashing of subsequent actions and disallowance of expense debits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Zahid Husain
Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
