The Debts Recovery Tribunal permitted the respondent bank to withdraw the notice of sale before issuing it to all legal representatives and ordered the filing of a fresh notice without debiting applicant's account. The application was then disposed of.
“Permitted” liberty to withdraw notice and issue fresh one; proceedings expenses not debited.
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. 52
Case No. SA/246/2024
VINOD KUMAR SAINI Vs GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD
Date: 23.03.2026.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Sanjay Rahar, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Ramnaresh Vijay, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
The counsel for the respondent bank submits that since the notice has not been issued to all the legal representatives, therefore, he seeks liberty from the Tribunal to withdraw the same and to issue the fresh. Permitted.
The respondent bank will not debit the expenses of the proceedings in the account of the applicant.
In view of the above, this Securitization Application stands disposed of. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
VINOD KUMAR SAINI
GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
