Satnam Singh v. Bank of Baroda
Case brief
What is this about?
The single bench disposed of the Single Appeal Nos. 230/2026 as it became infructuous because the Bank of Baroda voluntarily withdrew the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/230/2026 SATNAM SINGH Vs BANK OF BARODA
16.07.2026
Item No.9
Present: Mr. J.S. Bagga, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Rajan Puri, Counsel for respondent Bank along with Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Senior Manager Law of BOB/in person.
Mr. Puri, has made a statement at the Bar that the bank has taken a decision to withdraw the notice under Section 13(4). In view of this, the SA has been rendered infructuous, and the same stands disposed of .
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
PANKAJ
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Satnam Singh
- respondent
Bank of Baroda
Coram
A S Narang
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mr Pradip Nilkanthrao Deshmukh versus Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited
Hdfc Bank versus M/S Sunrise Overseas
Mr. Uday Ramesh Lohi(Dead) through Its Legal Heirs Mrs. Mahananda Ramesh Lohi and Mr. Ramesh Mahadeorao Lohi versus M/S Truehome Finance Limited
Canara Bank versus M/S Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji Steel and Fabrications