Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SANGEETA GROVER vs BANK OF BARODA on 28 July 2025
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Supp. Item No. 02 Case No. MA 205/2022 IN TSA/36/2021 SANGEETA GROVER VS BANK OF BARODA Date: 28.07.2025 Proceedings through hybrid mode: Present: Shri Naresh Batra, Counsel for the Applicant Shri R N Vijay, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
This MA is restored through Review Application filed by the applicant and is taken up today.
This matter has got a checkered history. TSA filed was dismissed on merits. There was a review application being filed having no. 18/2022 wherein they had requested that they will bring a buyer for the settlement. There was a stay directing the bank to not to take possession till 26.09.2022, thereafter MA was filed.
Though, various liberties were given while disposing the RA no. 18/2022, but according to the counsel for the bank, the property was already sold and the applicant has not approached with clean hands.
Counsel for the applicant requests that he is only representing one of the applicant in MA, Mrs. Sangeeta Grover. Possession of property situated at Rana Pratap Bagh is to be taken tomorrow. They seek indulgence of this Court and seek time to remove the articles.
The Court Commissioner shall given three hours time to remove the articles, but the possession will be taken as per orders passed by Ld. CMM only and as per his notice only, i.e. on 29.07.2025
If the applicant wishes to have more time, they are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority.
Court of the Presiding Officer
While dismissing this MA, the Tribunal was not happy with the way, the applicant/applicants have been trying to misuse by filing RA, MA then again RA. If they were aggrieved or even if they are aggrieved by any action, they will have to prefer a fresh Securitization Application.
For not disclosing the facts of sale of the property as well filing the SA, the cost was to be imposed however at request of the Counsel for the applicant no cost is imposed.
Accordingly, MA stands 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