Quashed

Banshi Lal Mali v. Sammaan Capital Limited

DRT6 Jul 2026SA/826/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this applicant vs respondent bank case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, the Presiding Officer addressed discrepancies in the pleadings and affidavit regarding the borrower's presence. The tribunal noted an admission of liability by the respondent but highlighted legal lacunas in the documentary proof of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Section 14 orders were quashed while the Stay App

What did the court decide?

Section 14 orders quashed; Stay Application dismissed; no order as to costs; respondent at liberty to obtain fresh Section 14 orders.

Banshi Lal Mali versus Sammaan Capital Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 29

¶3

Case No.SA/826/2025

¶4

BANSHI LAL MALI Vs SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED

¶5

Date: 06.07.2026. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present: Shri Kapil Kumar Kumawat, Counsel for the Applicant Shri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶6

In this matter, counsel for the applicant submits that there are various discrepancies in the pleadings before Ld. DM.

¶7

Counsel for the respondent has explained that they have sent the duly signed pleadings from Jaipur to be filed however, counsel before filing it has put different date in the pleadings. He also points out towards the discrepancy in the Affidavit of the applicant that there is nothing in the pleadings to show that the applicant was in Jaipur, whereas the statement is made about his presence in residence at Bhilwara.

¶8

He is ready and willing to pay Rs. 1.10 Crore to the respondent, thus, at least liability to pay Rs. 1.10 Crore is admitted. Total outstanding is Rs. 1.42 Crore and the respondent after waiving of the penalties have offered a figure of RS. 1.30 Crore.

¶9

In this case, if entity of the pleadings are looked into, this Tribunal earlier also stated that these legal lacunas cannot be pardoned in different forum or by any pleadings, it is the duty of the Authorized Officer of the respondent to take care of these lacunas which give alibi to borrowers to challenge their actions. I hope that

¶10

¶11

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶12

the financial institution shall be more careful while dealing with these cases.

¶13

Since both the pleadings are on similar footing, SA shall also have to be dismissed. If section 14 orders are to be quashed, in the same light of admission of the counsel that the borrower has not signed the Registry of notary but he was present in Jaipur, nothing to prove.

¶14

There is nothing to prove, there is only Notary Register which could have proved that he was present in Jaipur. The section 14 orders stand quashed & on similar footing SA also stands dismissed, with no order as to cost. It is made clear that bank will be at liberty to proceed toobtain fresh Section 14 orders as the 13(2) & 13(4) proceedings are not quashed.

¶15

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.

¶16

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

Banshi Lal Mali v. Sammaan Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banshi Lal Mali v. Sammaan 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

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