The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as time-barred and unfit for setting aside a final order, noting that recovery notices were served and properties sold.
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. 55
Case No. MA/180/202 IN OA/639/2018
TARAD TARDING COMPANY Vs CANARA BANK
Date: 30.01.2026.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Akarsh Mathur, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Rajkumar, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
The application is highly time barred and there is no question of setting aside the final order at this stage when the properties are also stated to have been sold, therefore, this Tribunal deed it not fit to set aside the final order when the recovery notice have been served on the same address which were depicted in the OA. Therefore, the application under section 5 of the limitation act stands dismissed. Accordingly, this Misc. Application also stands dismissed.
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 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be allowed given the delay and the fact that properties have been sold.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tarad Tarding Company
Canara Bank
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
