Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF BARODA vs SUNIL KUMAR BISHNOI on 1 October 2026
Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
cm
Item No. 54
Case No.MA/60/2025 IN SA/636/2022
BANK OF BARODA Vs SUNIL KUMAR BISHNOI
Date: 01.10.2026.
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present:
Shri Anubhav Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant Shri R K Salecha, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. In this matter, name of the counsel for the applicant is wrongly mentioned. Registry is directed to correct the name of applicant counsel.
2. The statement made before this Tribunal has not been complied with. The statement filed by the bank itself shows that when the payment on 26.09.2023 was made for Rs. 8.80 Lac, their account came into the credit of Rs. 3,46,592.61/- as on 15.12.2023, the same is reflected.
3. Order dated 15.01.2025 were passed in the presence of the counsel for the bank. This application has been filed on 03.05.2025 seeking further payment of approximately Rs. 4,26,766.49/-
4. Counsel submits that this is a compounding effect of the same. Ld. Counsel for the borrower has drawn my attention to the statement filed by the bank which is reflected at page no. 7. He submits that as per the bank, numerous payments are made, and unapplied interest is applied and adjust it. He draws my attention to the entry dated 25.09.2023 which shows interest of unapplied interest for the month of September, 2023.
5. When the interest of September, 2023 has already been recovered, further interest prior to that must also have been recovered. There is no objection recorded by the counsel for the bank, when the orders were passed, bank is not entitled Court of the Presiding Officer cm for any further payment which is nothing, but an arm- twisting exercise.
6. It is made clear that if documents are not released, NOC is not issued in compliance of the earlier orders, the borrowers shall be entitled for compensation for non-return of the title documents as per RBI guidelines Rs. 5,000/- per day.
7. With these directions, MA stands dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.
8. File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer