Partly allowed

Mrs Vinita Pradeep Bhagat v. Bank of Baroda

DRT12 Mar 2026SA/246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interlocutory and securitisation application regarding a loan dispute, the Debt Recovery Tribunal granted a conditional stay on the possession of the suit property scheduled for 13.03.2026, requiring the applicant to deposit 20% of the demand notice by a specific deadline.

What did the court decide?

Stay on possession of suit property granted conditional on deposit of 20% of the demand notice by 2 PM on 13.03.2026.

Mrs Vinita Pradeep Bhagat versus Bank of Baroda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.3, MUMBAI Before I/c. Presiding Officer, DRT, PUNE

¶2

(Through – Video Conference)

¶3

ORDER

¶4

¶5

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 804 OF 2026

¶6

¶7

MRS VINITA PRADEEP BHAGAT

… Applicant

BANK OF BARODA

… Respondent

Advocate Mr. Manish Rathod for the Applicant. Advocate Mr. Narendra Tiwari for Respondent.

¶12

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that out of two loan accounts one is closed by paying the amount. to settle the remaining loan account and ready to deposit 12 Lakh before possession therefore, as claimed may be granted.

¶13

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submitted that applicant sold one property which NOC of defendant was Rs. 65 Lakh and one loan account by depositing Rs. 30 Lakhs. The remaining amount of Rs. 35 lakh is remaining but not ready to deposit in the present loan account. therefore, if the applicant deposit a substantial amount before possession will be deferred otherwise possession will be taken.

¶14

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 246OF 2025 (Delivered on 12.03.2026) MRS VINITA PRADEEP BHAGAT … Applicant Versus BANK OF BARODA … Respondent Advocate Mr. Manish Rathod for the Applicant. Advocate Mr. Narendra Tiwari for Respondent. 1. Read and heard both parties. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that out of two loan accounts one is closed by paying the amount. to settle the remaining loan account and ready to deposit 12 Lakh before possession therefore, as claimed may be granted. 3. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submitted that applicant sold one property which NOC of defendant was Rs. 65 Lakh and one loan account by depositing Rs. 30 Lakhs. The remaining amount of

¶15

In view of the submission of both the parties and I am of the opinion that if the applicant wishes to protect possession of the suit property he will have to deposit a substantial amount before possession.

¶16

Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER

¶17

^{Order for stay for possession of suit property scheduled on 13.03.2026} is granted subject to applicant deposit 20 % of demand notice by 2 PM on 13.03.2026 in default Respondent may take possession of suit property. Sd/-

¶18

(Dilip G Murumkar)

¶19

I/c Presiding Officer

¶20

Date:.12.03.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal,

¶21

A.^{Order for stay for possession of suit property scheduled on 13.03.2026} is granted subject to applicant deposit 20 % of demand notice by 2 PM on 13.03.2026 in default Respondent may take possession of suit property.

¶22

Sd/-
(Dilip G Murumkar)
I/c Presiding Officer
Date:.12.03.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Mumbai-III
DRT- II Mumbai

Mrs Vinita Pradeep Bhagat v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Vinita Pradeep Bhagat v. Bank of Baroda

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

Easy Home Finance Limited versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited

Mahendra Ramchandra More versus Idbi Bank

Ms Shree Kismat Agro Plast a Partnership firm versus Asrec India limited

Ms Bms Super Market Through its Proprietor Ram Bhagatram Sadhwani versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Yamunabai Vasant Purkar

State Bank of India versus Pramod Nandkumar Jadhav