Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SUMIT BANSAL vs BANK OF INDIA on 14 November 2025
M.A. No.113 of 2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TIUBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW
Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2024
Dated 14.11.2025.
Surnit Bansal & Am.
-––- Applicant
versus
Bank of India and Ors.
Respondent
Ld. Counsel for the applicant: Mr. Kushagra Dikshit, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the respondent: None,
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.
JUDGMENT
1. This Miscellaneous Application has been brought by the applicant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.12.2022 passed in O.A. No.249 of 2022. It is submitted that the Miscellaneous Application has been brought on 14.08.2022 i.e. a lapse of almost 2 1 months.
2. Admittedly, the applicant had entered into an Allotment of Agreement dated 23.08.2017 with respondent No.2 and paid a sum of Rs.2.00 laos on 20.08.2017 a financial assistance was taken by the applicant and and Tripartite Agreement dated 07.12.2017 was executed for a loan amount of Rs.27.00 laos and odd and some installments regarding EMIs will paid by the applicant.
3. It is stated the respondent No.2 did not handover the possession of the said flat and within the time frame and one application under before the Hon’ble NCLT was filed; in moratorium procceding under Article 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy
M.A. No.113 of 2024 Code, 2016. It is alleged during the pendency of the moratorium period this O. A. was filed by the applicant bank, the applicant bank had submitted his claim of Rs.46,46,038.05 before the Resolution Professional and Ld. RP had rejected the claim of the applicant by E-mail dated 05.07.2024. As far as order and judgment dated 17.12.2022 is concerned the applicant has neither pleaded nor proved as to when he came to the knowledge of the judgment and order for examining as to whether there was any sufficient reason for filing Miscellaneous Application after a lapse of 21 months. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant was having of the knowledge regarding proceeding under O.A. and any cogent, sufficient or satisfactory ground has neither been pleaded nor proved by the applicants. It is stated that notices were duly served by the registered post and publication; defendant No.1 and 3 including the present applicant appeared, but no WS has been filed. In view of the fact, I find that the applicant has not shown any ground for setting aside or recall of the order/judgment dated 17.12.2022. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
4.
5.
6.
7. C File be consigned to record room. [Pr,v„ K„#„,Mt Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open cn'-rt on this 14th Day of November, 2025. [ ~ [Pravas Kumar Singh] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. (Mugish)