Dismissed¶34

Design Deal and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda

Bombay HC15 Apr 2026WP/12202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Design Deal and Ors v. Bank of Baroda, Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No. 12202 of 2025 (15th April 2026): challenge to DRAT orders dated 05/02/2019 and 03/07/2024; sufficiency of pleadings in DRT counterclaim (particularised Claim No. 2C) for adjustment of two fixed deposits; amended written statement paragraphs 21A, 21B, 21C; 'WS' held typographical error for counterclaim; review application; error apparent on face of record; remand to DRAT sought and refused; writ jurisdiction declined; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court is unable to agree that the contents of the counterclaim from paragraph 20 onwards contain sufficient pleadings to press the claim based on the two fixed deposits. ¶26

Design Deal and Ors. vs Bank of Baroda — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the DRAT erred in holding that, due to lack of pleadings, the adjustment sought by the petitioners in respect of certain fixed deposits could not be considered. +2 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Court is unable to agree that the contents of the counterclaim from paragraph 20 onwards contain sufficient pleadings to press the claim based on the two fixed deposits.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The particularised claim at 2C of the counterclaim contains no reference to the petitioners' claim in respect of the two fixed deposits.

¶26

Key takeaways

The DRAT took the correct view in holding that none of the heads of the particularised claims in the counterclaim covered the contention sought to be raised on the basis of the fixed deposits.ratio¶26
The reference in paragraph 13 of the DRAT's order to heads shown in the 'WS' is an obvious typographical error, the next sentence referring to the heads under the counterclaim.ratio¶26
Mere reference to paragraphs 21A, 21B and 21C of the written statement cannot advance the petitioners' case in the face of the lack of pleadings in the counterclaim and the particularised claims 1A to 4A at paragraph 45.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 12202 of 2025, decided 15th April 2026 — Petition dismissed. Design Deal and Ors challenged a DRAT order dated 05/02/2019 insofar as it held that their claim for adjustment of two fixed deposits could not be considered for want of pleadings, and the DRAT's order dated 03/07/2024 rejecting their review application. The Court held that the counterclaim before the DRT (paragraphs 20 onwards) and the particularised claims at paragraph 45 thereof, including Claim No. 2C, contained no pleadings covering the fixed-deposit claim; the reference in the DRAT's order to heads shown in the 'WS' was an obvious typographical error for the counterclaim; and mere reference to paragraphs 21A, 21B and 21C of the amended written statement could not cure the lack of pleadings. No error was attributable to the DRAT and there was no error apparent on the face of the record; no case was made out for exercising writ jurisdiction.

¶1

12-WP-12202-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12202 OF 2025

¶5

Design Deal and Ors V/S.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Bank of Baroda .. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Shadab Jan, i/by Yash Dhakad, for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. A.R. Bamne, i/by M/s A.R. Bamne and Co., for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 15^th APRIL 2026.

¶11

PC:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioners are only partly aggrieved by order dated 05/02/2019, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). It is the case of the petitioners that the DRAT erred in rendering a finding that due to lack of pleadings, the adjustment sought by the petitioners in respect of certain fixed deposits could not be considered. It is the case of the petitioners that this error was pointed out by filing a review application, which was also erroneously rejected by the second impugned order dated 03/07/2024.

¶14

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners, with the

1 of 4

Sweety

12-WP-12202-2025.doc

permission of this Court, amended the writ petition to add prayer clause b-1 as an alternative prayer, seeking a direction from this Court to remand the matter to the DRAT for reconsideration of the finding given with regard to particular Claim No. 2C in the counterclaim filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). As a matter of fact, when this petition was taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for relief in terms of amended prayer clause b-1 so that the DRAT could take into consideration the contention of the petitioners in respect of the said fixed deposits, on its own merits.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the pleadings on record support the observations made by the DRAT and therefore, no case is made out for remanding the matter to the DRAT.

¶20

We have considered the rival submissions. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 05/02/2019, in the context of the aforementioned rival contentions, is found in paragraph 13 of the said order. We find that the DRAT came to a considered conclusion that although arguments were advanced on the aforesaid point focused on the two fixed deposits of the petitioners, there was lack of pleadings in the original proceeding before the DRT.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners was at pains to point out that

2 of 4

Sweety

12-WP-12202-2025.doc

in the amended written statement at Paragraph 21A, 21B and 21C, enough pleadings were on record in support of the claim made on behalf of the petitioners in the context of the two fixed deposits. In that context, reference was also made to the contents of the counterclaim from paragraph 20 onwards, to claim that the particularised claim at 2C of the counterclaim sufficiently covered the necessary pleadings for the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in the context of the issue for consideration.

¶26

We have perused the contents of the counterclaim and the particularised claims at paragraph 45 thereof. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that contents of the counterclaim at paragraphs 20 onwards contain sufficient pleadings to press for the relief based on the two fixed deposits referred to hereinabove. We also find that the particularised claim at 2C does not bring out any reference to the claim of the petitioners in the context of the two fixed deposits. Therefore, the DRAT appears to have taken the correct view by holding that none of the heads of the particularised claims in the counterclaim, cover the said contention sought to be raised in appeal by the petitioners. We do find that in paragraph 13 of the impugned order dated 05/02/2019, the DRAT has observed that though much was argued on the aforesaid point, the amounts pertaining to the fixed deposits were not covered in any of the heads shown in the “WS”. We take this as an obvious typographical error for the reason that the immediate next sentence in the said paragraph specifically refers to

3 of 4

Sweety

12-WP-12202-2025.doc

the heads under the counterclaim and thereupon an observation that none of the heads cover the point sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners. In such a situation, mere reference to paragraphs 21A, 21B and 21C of the written statement would not take the case of the petitioners any further, in the face of lack of pleadings in the counterlcaim and the particularised claims from 1A to 4A in the counterclaim at paragraph 45.

¶31

It is to be noted that the DRAT, as a matter of fact, dismissed the appeal of the respondent bank and partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners, barring the said issue sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners by relying upon the said fixed deposits.

¶32

We find that no error can be attributed to the DRAT in reaching the aforesaid conclusion at paragraph 13 of the impugned order dated 05/01/2019. Consequently, we also find no error in impugned order dated 03/07/2024, wherein the DRAT reached a conclusion that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 05/02/2019.

¶33