Dismissed

Manju Agarwal v. Bank of Baroda

DRT11 Feb 2025SA/79/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of a Sale Application challenging a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the application was filed beyond limitation, noting the applicant had previously refused service of notices and the sale had already taken place.

What did the court decide?

The Sale Application and all pending Interlocutory Applications were disposed off without any relief granted to the applicant.

Manju Agarwal versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 22

¶3

Case No. SA/79/2025

¶4

MANJU AGARWAL Vs BANK OF BARODA

¶5

Date: 11.02.2025.

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode

¶7

Present:

¶8

Shri Shubham Maheshwari along with Shri Aman Lodha, Counsel for the Applicant

¶9

Shri Harjeet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶10

In this matter, preliminary objection taken by the bank is that this Securitization Application is not filed within limitation. The Securitization Application which is filed is challenging notice under Section 13(2) when physical possession of the property has already been taken on 24.05.2024. No prayer was made for quashing of sale notice. The auction notice has been issued four times earlier, but the applicant failed to challenge the said notices as no SA was filed.

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent has shown me the envelope by which they have sent the notices and the same were refused by the applicants. Now by filing this SA, the applicant simply wants to take advantage of his own wrong. They have not come up with the clean hands rather they have tried to implicate an innocent officer of the bank whom they knew earlier at the time of granting of loan.

¶12

Without knowing the complexity of the matter, the officer has given them the copy of sale notice. The applicant never disclosed the fact that they have earlier refused to accept the notices issued by the bank. The officer is present before me and there is no fault on his part. He has simply been swayed away by the murmurs of the applicants. Counsel for the applicant is emphasizing on the non-issuance of redemption notice, however, in the prayer, sale notice is requested to be quashed. Whereas sale has already taken place 30.12.2024, the notice is dated 12.12.2024. the SA applicant refused the service which is

¶13

¶14

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶15

deemed service. They have failed to challenge the said notice within limitation.

¶16

With these observations, SA stands disposed off, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.

¶17

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶18

File be consigned to record as per rules.

¶19

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶20

Manju Agarwal v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Agarwal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Mangi Ram Alias Mangi Lal

Punjab National Bank versus Harshpinder Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sanjeev Tyagi

Smt Shabina Qureshi versus State Bank of India

Mrs Lichhama Devi versus Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Jasveer