The DBT dismissed the applicant's sale petition (SA) as beyond limitation due to a completed auction. The court refused to condone the applicant's breach of the lock-in period by breaking locks, dismissing the application and related interim applications.
Sale Petition dismissed for being beyond limitation; Interim Applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 60
Case No.SA/681/2025
RAMESH CHAND SAINI Vs TIGER HOME FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED
Date: 10.08.2026.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Kapil Kumar Kumawat, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Jitendra Choudhary, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, the auction is not challenged which is already taken place. Now challenge cannot be made as it is beyond limitation.
The applicant have already broken the locks and taken law into their own hands. The Tribunal is not interested in supporting the person who has taken law into their own hands.
In view of the above, SA stands dispose of as dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
cm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an auction already conducted is open to challenge or barred by limitation.
RAMESH CHAND SAINI
TIGER HOME FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
