In a Securitization Application, the Tribunal disposed of the matter due to expired limitation arising from symbolic possession in November 2024. The applicant also alleged the auction notice was defective as the area was omitted.
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. 6
Case No.SA/592/2025
SMT TANNU MISHRA Vs CAPRI GLOBAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
Date: 27.08.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present:
Shri R K Bhargav, Counsel for the Applicant
Ms. Kratika Sharma , Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, counsel for the applicant submits that they have calculating the limitation from the date of auction. The symbolic possession was taken in November, 2024 and physical possession in March, 2025, therefore, limitation had already expired as it is started to began from November, 2024 when the symbolic possession was taken. So far as auction is concerned, no bids have been received and applicant submits that auction notice is defective as the area is not given.
In view of this, if the respondent bank appears to sale the property they will give 30 days notice and treated as the first auction. In these circumstances, 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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Securitization Application should be disposed of given the delay in filing due to expired limitation and alleged defectiveness of the auction notice.
Whether the auction notice was defective for not specifying the area and no bids were received.
Tannu Mishra
Capri Global Housing Finance Limited
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
