Disposed

Sunil Juneja v. State Bank of India

DRT15 Jul 2026SA/699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of a Securitization Application filed by Sunil Juneja against State Bank of India. The Tribunal granted liberty to the applicant to file separate applications for each loan with exclusion of the pending period from limitation. Coercive action by the bank was stayed for 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to applicant to file fresh Securitization Applications with exclusion of pending period from limitation; coercive action by respondent bank stayed for 15 days.

Sunil Juneja versus State Bank of India — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 54

¶3

Case No. SA/699/2024

¶4

SUNIL JUNEJA Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶5

Date: 15.07.2026. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶6

Shri Hitesh Kumar, Counsel for the Applicant

¶7

Shri Kirti Kapoor, Counsel for the Respondent no. 1

¶8

Shri Kailash Tailor, Counsel for the Respondent no. 2

¶9

The matter is already fixed on 01.10.2026, but applicant has filed I.A. No. 724/2026 for early hearing. During the course of the arguments, the Tribunal put a question to the bank whether they have issued a single notice against two loans or there are two different notices? The counsel for the respondent bank submits that there are two loans, different properties and two different notices have been enforcing their right separately.

¶10

The Tribunal fails to understand that how two notices combined in this Securitization Applicant and filed this SA.

¶11

The counsel for the applicant submits that he may be protected for 15 days against the coercive steps and this SA can be disposed of with liberty to him to file fresh Securitization Application and saving the limitation for the period for which these proceedings were pending.

¶12

A genuine request is made by the applicant, so this Securitization Application stands disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file separate SAs challenging those notices. So far as limitation is concerned, the time spent in these proceedings shall be excluded to calculate the limitation when the fresh Securitization Application is filed.

¶13

Since the bank has issued notice for taking any coercive action, they shall take the action only after the expiry of 15 days from today.

¶14

Accordingly, this Securitization Application stands disposed of. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶15

¶16

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶17

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

Sunil Juneja v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Juneja v. State Bank of India

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

Dhalumal Dhamandas versus Axis Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sameer Khan

State Bank of India versus Gajendra Singh

Ladu Das Vaishnav versus Mentor Home Loans India Limited

1Vikas Kirana Store Rampura Bhiwadi Alwar Bhiwadi Rajasthan 3010192 Vikas Gupta ward No 32 Rampura Shahod Alwar Bhiwadi Rajasthan 301019 3 Ayush Ward No 32 Rampura Vtc Shahod Po Shahod Alwar Bhiwadi Rajasthan 301019Gupta versus Electronica Finance Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Paridhi Enterprises