In this secutritization application before the DRAT, Jaipur, the applicant failed to appear through legal representation over an extended period. Consequently, the Presiding Officer dismissed the application in default due to non-prosecution.
The Securitization Application is dismissed in default for non-prosecution due to the applicant's absence.
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. 44
Case No. SA/142/2024
AJAJ HUSSAIN Vs BANK OF BARODA
Date: 24.08.2026.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
None for the Applicant
Shri Harjeet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
Since long none appeared on behalf of the applicant. The counsel for the respondent bank submits that on same ground their writ petition is pending.
In view of none appearance of the applicant since long, this Securitization Application stands dismissed in default on account of non-prosecution.
File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Ajaj Hussain
Bank of Baroda
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
