Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MS SHREE BALAJI FUELS vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 17 March 2026
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.
**ORDER-SHEET** Page No. ....
**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN**
**M.A. No. 13 of 2026**
**M/s Shree Balaji Fuels & Anr. Vs Central Bank of India**
**Date: 17.03.2026**
**Item No.01**
Present: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants. Applicant in person Sh. Sunil Badhan, Ld. Nodal officer of Respondent Bank.
Called out, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant present. Ld. Nodal officer of the Respondent Bank present.
Applicants have provided paperwork to the Ld. Nodal officer of the Respondent Bank today in court.
Ld. Counsel for the Applicants has argued that the applicant is ready for the confirmation of the auction sale which has already been taken place in the year 2010. This statement can be made by the applicant directly to the bank and the Respondent Bank may consider the said statement even though applicants are also negligent for not taking appropriate action in relation to this matter finally before the Tribunal or Respondent Bank authorities. This practice cannot be said justified on the part of any litigant.
It is also surprising the applicant has stated that he wants confirmation of the auction sale in question but physical possession is with the applicant and applicant has enjoying it from the last 16 years, it may be possible a settlement has already been taken place with the said auction purchaser and the purpose may be only to damage the Respondent bank in relation to the borrowed money as the applicants are duty bound to repay whole of the borrowed money as per law, rules and regulation applicable to the borrowed money.
As per applicant the amount due against the applicants as per demand notice is Rs.8,87,230/- as on 25.05.2007 and the property in question was auction for Rs.4,10,000/- on April,2010 after auction of the property in question the liability was rest of the borrower.
Today it is not possible for the applicants to repay whole of the amount due as per terms and condition of the borrowed money and it may be possible that the Respondent bank has already obtained recovery certificate in the matter in question so it is not possible for the Tribunal to find out original application in RDDB Act. The applicant has stated that OTS was submitted by the applicant with **ORDER-SHEET**Page No. ....**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN****M.A. No. 13 of 2026****M/s Shree Balaji Fuels & Anr. Vs Central Bank of India**
Rs.8,64,000/- by deposition an amount of Rs.1,66,000/- on 14.12.2010 and prior to the said amount an amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited on 22.12.2009. But the applicant has not taken any action in the light of opportunity provided by the Tribunal in the year 2010 and slept for a long time till now and now want to hear the TSA which was dismissed in 2019.
The Securitization Application filed by the applicant had transferred to this Tribunal on the basis of creation of this Tribunal in the year 2017 and the said Securitization Application was numbered as T.S.A. No.25 of 2019 but the applicant has not come forward after issuance of notice even though every litigant is duty bound to be careful in relation to his litigation. After a period of more than 15 years. The Applicant want to start litigation afresh again eventhough not taken any steps for OTS or pursuing the SARFAESI proceedings, a period of 15 years has already been elapsed from the date of granting relief to applicant for OTS. The applicant has approached this Tribunal through this miscellaneous petition and not clear about his stand, what he wants.
If applicant wants to settle the matter as stated by the applicant through confirmation of the auction sale and by repay any amount as per requirement of case, the applicant may approach the authorities of the Respondent bank in appropriate manner.
In the light of circumstances of this case, it shall also be expected from the Respondent bank to decide the controversy finally in amicable manner without creating a new situation of further litigation.
The petition is disposed of in the light of above observation All interim applications are also disposed off accordingly.
Record be consigned.
***If any party feels grievance by this order may approach Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in appeal under section 18 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002.***
(Umesh Kumar Sharma) Presiding Officer
17.05.2026