Applicant sought relief under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (implied by tribunal context). Court noted withdrawal of notice but declined to issue directions, advising approach to the bank. Application disposed.
Application disposed; applicant advised to approach bank for settlement
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. 72
Case No. SA/613/2023
MRS MAN KANWAR GOYAL Vs ICICI BANK LIMITED Date: 20.01.2025.
Present:
Shri Rajkumar, Counsel for the Applicant Shri Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI In this matter, counsel for the applicant submits that notice under Section 13(2) has been withdrawn by the bank and possession was taken and published in the newspaper. Counsel for the bank submits that she is the mother of the borrower.
The grievance is raised by the applicant may be genuine, but in view of the fact that the borrower is son of the applicant, Tribunal is not interested in issuing any direction to the bank, however, if the applicant approach the bank or make her son approach the bank for settlement, the bank will consider it sympathetically.
In view of the above submissions, this Securitization Application stands disposed off.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to the concerned parties. File be consigned to record, as per rules.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
MRS MAN KANWAR GOYAL
ICICI BANK LIMITED
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
