Disposed

Plinthstone Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Cp Capital Limited

DRT4 May 2026SA/386/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur disposed of a Securitization Application where the respondent bank agreed to return possession. The court granted liberty to challenge non-compliant notices but did not award costs. Parties were listed for potential Lok Adalat settlement.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to handover possession within one week; liberty granted to challenge notices if not returned; liberty to seek settlement.

Plinthstone Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus Cp Capital… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 9

¶3

Case No. SA/386/2026

¶4

PLINTHSTONE PROJECTS PVT LTD Vs CP CAPITAL LIMITED

¶5

Date: 04.05.2026

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶7

Shri Prateek Madnani, Counsel for the Applicant

¶8

Shri Abhishek Bhardwaj, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶9

In this matter, the counsel for the applicant submits that there are two demand notices one of 02.05.2026 and another is 12.09.2025. Similarly, there are also two 13(4) notices one of 31.08.2025 and another is of 20.11.2025. Admittedly, the counsel for the applicant argued that the second demand is being issued and earlier action deemed to have been withdrawn. He points out that in order under Section 14, there is nothing mentioned of demand notice dated 12.09.2025 & notice under Section 13(2) dated 20.11.2025 and that have been issued on the basis of earlier demand notice and notice under Section 13 (4). Possession of the property has been taken by the respondent bank and counsel for the respondent bank fairly submits that they will return the possession and also not proceed with the Section 14 order’s, however, it is made clear that notice under Section 13(2) dated 12.09.2025 and notice under Section 13(4) dated 12.11.2025 shall stand and any order under Section 14 taken on the basis of that only.

¶10

The counsel for the applicant submits that cost may be paid, however, since the respondent has fairly admitted to return the, the Tribunal is not inclined to give the any cost, but a liberty is given in case the respondent bank proceeds, the applicant may file fresh Securitization Application challenging the demand notice dated 12.09.2025 and notice under Section 13(4) dated 20.11.2025 sans limitation.

¶11

The applicant will be at liberty to approach the respondent bank for settlement, if the settlement can arrive. Both the parties can come in Lok Adalat on 08.05.2026 and get listed the matter.

¶12

The respondent bank shall handover the possession to the applicant within one week from today as undertaken.

¶13

¶14

Court of the Presiding Officer

¶15

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶16

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.

¶17

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

Plinthstone Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Cp Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Plinthstone Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Cp Capital Limited

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

Idbi Bank versus Shri Sharwan Kumar Yadav

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shree Salasar Jewelers

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus M/s S N Arts

Bank of Baroda versus Kamal Kumar Sharma

Hdfc Bank versus Electroplaza Technologies Private Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s Sanjari Minesh and Minerals