Disposed

Ramvilas Son of Shri Ganga Das v. a U Small Finance Bank Limited

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2025CW/92/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted the petitioner two weeks to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- to stay auction proceedings initiated by the respondent bank. The petition sought extension due to health issues and alleged delay in initial compliance, but the court noted an inordinate delay of over three and half years. Failure to deposit the amount within the granted time would allow the respondent to proceed with the aucti

What did the court decide?

Two weeks granted to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-; failure allows respondent to proceed with auction subject to court permission.

Ramvilas Son of Shri Ganga Das Vs a U Small Finance… — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 92/2022

¶3

Ramvilas Son Of Shri Ganga Das & Anr.

¶4

----Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

A U Small Finance Bank Limited

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Hans RajKuldeep
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Ram Naresh Vijay

¶9

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

05/08/2025

¶12

Matter comes up on application (I/A No.1/2025) with the prayer for extension of the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the subject property, after deposition of Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner with the respondents within a period of four weeks from that day. Counsel submits that the petitioner suffered loss of business and also suffered heart problem and as such he was not in a position to comply with the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by this Court. Counsel submits that now, the respondents are going to auction the subject property and a notice in this regard has been published, therefore, some time be granted to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 04.01.2022.

¶14

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that more

¶15

[CW-92/2022]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

than three and half years have passed, but till date, the order dated 04.01.2022 has not been complied by the respondents and not a single penny has been deposited by the petitioner. Counsel submits that when the outstanding amount was not deposited by the petitioner, the possession of his house was taken by the respondents, but by forceful measures, the petitioner has broken the locks of the subject premises and forcefully entered inside. Counsel submits that even a complaint in this regard was also made to the concerned Police Station, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any further indulgence.

¶18

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶19

This fact is not in dispute that more than three and half years have passed, but till date, the order dated 04.01.2022 has not been complied with by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. In support of his contentions, an Angiography Report has been placed which reflects that the petitioner has blockage of 95% in one of the arteries, the aforesaid report pertains to the year 2024, but no explanation has been given by the petitioner for the year 2022-2023. It appears that the sole object of the petitioner was to delay the auction proceedings and no justified reason has been assigned for this inordinate delay and more than three and half years have passed without the petitioner making compliance of the order dated 04.01.2022. Now, the respondents were left with no other option except to put the property of the petitioner up for auction in order to recover the outstanding dues against the petitioner.

¶20

[CW-92/2022]

¶21

In order to see the bona fides of the petitioner, two weeks’ further time is granted to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. If the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount, within the above stipulated time, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed with the auction proceedings.

¶22

In case, the petitioner complies with this order within the above stipulated time, the respondents may proceed with the auction proceedings, but the same shall not be finalised without seeking prior permission of the Court.

¶23

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶24

Aayush Sharma /106

Ramvilas Son of Shri Ganga Das v. a U Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramvilas Son of Shri Ganga Das v. a U 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

Smt Keshar Devi Vs State Revenu Departmentors

Rajesh Kumar Vs State Mines Departmentors

Kumar Sain, S/O Ratiram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lalita Jingar D/O Murlidhar Jingar Vs Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Sardar Balbir Singh (Deceased) S/O Late Sardar Balwant Singh Basur Vs Rent Appellate Tribunal

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Medical Agency Vs Anil Kumar Jain Son of Shri P.C. Jain