Dismissed

Sharavan Kumar Bohara v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT4 Apr 2026SA/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a securitization application challenging an auction where the applicant admitted delay in challenging the sale despite knowledge of the sale certificate. The court held no substance remained in the application and granted no liberty to appeal the auction.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without liberty to challenge the auction separately as no liberty is required.

Sharavan Kumar Bohara versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 79

¶3

Case No. SA/63/2024

¶4

SHARAVAN KUMAR BOHARA Vs AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED

¶5

Date: 04.04.2026. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶6

Shri Sanjay Joshi, Counsel for the Applicant Shri Ramnaresh Vijay, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶7

Sh. Vikas Jain, Counsel for the Auction Purchaser

¶8

In this matter, the main grievance of the applicant is that even after the declaration of the account as NPA and even after the possession notice, the bank continuously deducted the EMIs.

¶9

The counsel for the respondent bank submits that it was the system generated mandate because of which the EMIs were deducted and they have returned the same.

¶10

Counsel for the auction purchaser is appearing and submits that the auction has not been challenged by the applicant. The counsel for the applicant submits that they would like to amend the SA, but to the query of limitation in challenging those actions, he submits that they have come to know only on 05.01.2026 about the sale of the property whereas the reply of the bank has been filed on 23.09.2024 in which the copy of the sale certificate is also annexed. Therefore, the applicant was diligently sleeping on the matter and instead of challenging the auction has kept quiet till date. Further, he submits that the possession has been taken and the witnesses are of Jaipur that will not change the action to an illegal one. Now because possession has already been handed over to the auction purchaser and auction is not challenged, the possession of the auction purchaser cannot be disrupted.

¶11

The applicant should have been diligent enough in challenging the auction, he wanted the same. There is no substance left in the Securitization Application, therefore, the same stands dismissed.

¶12

At this stage, counsel for the applicant submits that they may be given liberty to challenge the auction. There is no requirement of liberty from this Tribunal to challenge the auction, they can take recourse as per law.

¶13

¶14

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶15

In view of the above, this Securitization Application stands dismissed. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶16

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶17

Sharavan Kumar Bohara v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharavan Kumar Bohara v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

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

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Ms Mk Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Bhagwan Transport and Contractor

Indian Bank versus M/S Aahna Dairy LLP

Rajnish Kumar versus Canara Bank

Rajesh Kumar versus Icici Home Finance

Alka Kukkar versus Hdfc Bank