Disposed

Rajendra Udaypratap Singh and Bindu Rajendra Singh v. Bank of Baroda

DRT27 Mar 2026SA/38/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for stay against physical possession of a flat under the SARFAESI Act, the Court directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs by 1:00 pm on the date of scheduled possession. Upon compliance, the possession is deferred; otherwise, the bank may proceed. Applicants were also directed to approach for settlement within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed applicant to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- by 1:00 pm on 30.03.2026; upon payment, possession to be deferred; otherwise possession to be carried out.

Rajendra Udaypratap Singh and Bindu Rajendra Singh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, I/c Presiding Officer DRT-III, Mumbai At: DRT-II, Mumbai

¶2

I.A. No. 1047 of 2026 In Securitisation Application No. 38 of 2026

¶3

Sr. No.4 Decided on :27.03.2026

¶4

Rajendra Udaypratap Singh & Anr.

...APPLICANT/s

V/s.

Bank of Baroda

^{...RESPONDENT/s}

¶9

Argued By –

¶10

Mr D. K. Singh, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶11

Ms Aarti Suvarna, Advocate for Respondent.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This order of mine shall dispose of the Interim Application bearing I.A. No.1047 of 2026.

¶14

By way of I.A. No1047 of 2026, the Applicants pray to restrain the Respondent from taking physical possession of Flat No. 601, 6" Floor, A-Wing, Sai Kutir, Viva Township, Viva Jangid Complex, Manvelpada, Virar (E), Taluka Vasai, District Palghar — 401 305 for short, ‘the said properties’) scheduled on 30.03.2026.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants are residing in the said flat and want to settled the matter with the Respondent Bank amicably and are ready to pay Rs.2 lakhs to show his Bonafide and Applicants will approach the Bank for further settlement. So, stay should be granted.

¶17

Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and submitted that on previous occasion, the Applicants had committed default as per undertaking. The total amount as on today is Rs.22-23 lakhs (approximately). The Respondent Bank is taking possession in accordance with the provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002. So, prayer should be rejected.

¶18

In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submitted that default of OTS amount was not intentional as the Applicants deposited Rs.1,55,000/- on 28.01.2026 and the remaining Rs.95,00,000/- was paid on the next date due to some technical problem.

¶19

Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.

¶20

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if the Applicants- deposits Rs.2,50,000/- by 1:00 pm on 30.03.2026, the Respondent Bank shall defer the possession which is scheduled on 30.03.2026. However, in case of failure,

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

the Respondent Bank will be free to take possession of the said flat as per law.

¶23

It is further directed that the Applicants shall approach the Respondent Bank for settlement within 15 days from 30.03.2026. The Respondent Bank is also expected to deal with the matter with positive attitude.

¶24

Accordingly, I.A. No.1047 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶25

(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK)

¶26

I/c PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, MUMBAI

¶27

At: DRT- II, MUMBAI

¶28

Tejas

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Rajendra Udaypratap Singh and Bindu Rajendra Singh v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Udaypratap Singh and Bindu Rajendra Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Zedeye Technologies Private Limited And Ors. versus Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

Mr Rohit Prem Chabra versus Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Ratnabai Narayan Kakad

Ms Jyoti Paper Udyog Limited And Anr. versus Canara Bank

Deshmukh Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of India

Valens Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank