Dismissed

Ms Gajanand Medical Agency v. Hdfc Bank

DRT6 Mar 2026SA/168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed applications for condonation of delay and amendment in a statutory appeal. It rejected the limitation plea regarding a challenge to the District Magistrate's notice and disposed of the main appeal, admittance of liability as no notice under Section 13(2) was challenged.

What did the court decide?

The limitation and amendment applications were dismissed; the main statutory appeal was dismissed; liberty was granted to approach the bank for a settlement.

Ms Gajanand Medical Agency versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 52

¶3

Case No.SA/168/2024

¶4

MS GAJANAND MEDICAL AGENCY Vs HDFC BANK

¶5

Date: 06.03.2026. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present: Shri T S Parmar, Counsel for the Applicant

¶6

Shri Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶7

In this matter, Ld. Counsel has moved three applications, one for early hearing, one for condonation of delay under Limitation Act and one for seeking amendment in the SA.

¶8

While arguing on limitation, counsel submits that earlier they have moved an application seeking liberty of this Tribunal/permission of this Tribunal to file amended SA, that is within limitation. But the fact of the matter is he is trying to mislead the Tribunal and the said application is also filed along with other applications on 20.05.2025, therefore submitting that he filed application seeking permission to file amended SA earlier which is in limitation and then filing these applications is totally contrary to the record.

¶9

He is also trying to rely upon the orders of Hon’ble High Court stating and seeking liberty that Hon’ble Tribunal has granted liberty to approach appropriate forum, however the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court are speaking orders wherein applicants they have sought the liberty to make a representation to the bank and bank was directed to decide the same.

¶10

There is no averment, no request, no pleading made by them that they may be given liberty to approach the Tribunal.

¶11

Ironically, the documents placed by the applicant includes one legal notice issued to the District Magistrate dated 05.05.2025. The advocate Shri Prince Choudhary has issued the notice

¶12

¶13

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶14

knowingfullywell that as per Section 14(3), no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate or any officer authorized by CMM, DM cannot be challenged in any Court of Law before any forum, Tribunal does not find any merit in the limitation application.

¶15

There is no reason for taking cognizance of such application, therefore limitation application stands dismissed and application for amendment also stands dismissed.

¶16

So far as, main SA is concerned, applicant has not challenged no notice under Section 13(2). Since no challenge has been made to demand notice, the liability stands admitted. A symbolic possession notice is nothing, but a notice to make aware to public that this property is under symbolic possession of the bank and not to deal with it and that no discrepancy is shown in that notice.

¶17

Counsel for the applicant stated that since this file has come after getting NOC, he has no liberty to argue on that.

¶18

In view of the above, this SA stands disposed of dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed of, if any. SA is dismissed with the liberty to the applicant to approach the respondent bank for a settlement, looking into the March closing, if payment is being made in March, respondent is hereby directed to consider the request for settlement as per the policy.

¶19

File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶20

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶21

Ms Gajanand Medical Agency v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Gajanand Medical Agency v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Shri Balaji Art and Craft

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Amar Singh

Smfg India Credit Co. Ltd. versus Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Suresh Chandra Sharma versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Axis Bank versus Ranbanka Jodha Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Ashu Nagewala versus Union Bank of India