Dismissed

Shailesh Jain v. Bank of Baroda

DRT6 Jul 2026SA/498/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of a Securitization Application regarding interest rates. The Tribunal found no fault with the bank acting in accord with its sanction, and dismissed the application while noting that the diversion of construction funds should be addressed by the bank. It granted the bank leave to offer a contractual rate of interest for two years.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the applicant to consider a request for a contractual rate of interest for two years pending the bank's consideration.

Shailesh Jain versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

OFFICE NOTE PLACED BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

regretted. signed orders. Copy of this order shall be kept in file. Error is of Baroda order was passed on dated 06.07.2026. The orders were signed and were to be uploaded. Inadvertently the draft copy In the matter SA no 498/2026 titled Shailesh Jain Vs. Bank of the order was uploaded instead of orders which were passed. uploaded and permission be granted to upload the correct and The registry be ordered to take down the draft order which was

¶3

¶4

Court Master

¶5

Hon'ble Presiding officer
For orders
Dated 16.07.2026
ermcitted deletion & uptodree
of saidordee willbe voide not tobe
gomactorders. ty cxopy dambomadas
"frcated as copy rder passed
tis mattes.
assed eis
Vumalgup
16/)26

¶6

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶7

Item No. 26

¶8

Case No. SA/498/2026

¶9

SHAILESH JAIN Vs BANK OF BARODA

¶10

Date: 06.07.2026.

¶11

Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶12

Ms. Pratyushi Mehta, Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

ShriKirtiKapoor, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶14

In this matter, the counsel for the applicant seeks concession for

¶15

the COVID period and the Tribunal was inclined to grant some concession and requested the Bank’s counsel to seek instructions if the bank can charge simple/contractual rate of interest during the COVID period.

¶16

Counsel for the respondent bank submits that even after COVID period nothing have been constructed as four years have passed. He further submits that as per sanction if the construction is not completed within three years, commercial rate of interest shall be charged from the day one.

¶17

The counsel for the applicant submits that she is not aware as to where this fund of construction has gone. Definitely, this fund have not been utilized to construction the property and admittedly the same appears to have been diverted somewhere else. There is no default with

¶18

¶19

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶20

the bank in charging commercial rate of interest, however, I leave it to the bank that they would like to consider their request of giving contractual rate of interest of two years. The persons who have embezzled the funds do not deseve any sympathy.

¶21

Only argument advanced was charging of commercial interest but the Tribunal finds no fault in bank action. Surely it will have to be seen that if the funds for construction were used for construction where those

¶22

funds have gone. The concerned branch officials must have monitored utilization.

¶23

There is nothing in this Securitization Application, as no action of bank is without statutory backing therefore, this Securitization Application stands dismissed. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶24

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶25

Shailesh Jain v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Jain 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

Hansraj Lekhra versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Sagar overseas

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahesh Kumar Prajapati

Rishabh Jangir versus Truhome Finance Limited

Pushpendra Singh versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

Sataynder Singh Choudhary versus Bank of Maharashtra