Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Gajanan

DRT19 Oct 2022OA/261/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application to withdraw an Original Application filed in its jurisdiction. The court returned original documents, granted a refund of court fees, and excluded the time spent in its Tribunal from the limitation period for filing the matter in the proper court.

What did the court decide?

Original Application 261/2022 dismissed as withdrawn; original documents returned; entire court fees refunded; time spent excluded from limitation.

Bank of Baroda versus Gajanan — DRT (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

19.10.2022

¶4

Sr. No.10 OA No.261/2022 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1483/2022 IN

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.261/2022

¶6

Bank of Baroda ..Applicant Versus Gajanan Ramrao Chalak& another ..Defendant

¶7

Mr. B. A. Panchal - Advocate for the applicant-bank. None for the defendant. 1. By this Interlocutory Application the applicant bank seeks permission of this Tribunal to withdraw the Original Application.

¶8

1. In this matter the learned counsel for the applicant submits that, they have filed withdrawal application as they want to file the matter in the proper jurisdiction of the trial court as mortgage suit.

¶9

1. The applicant therefore, seeks permission of this Tribunal to withdraw the Original Application. The applicant also seeks return of original documents and refund of the court fees.

¶10

1. The applicant has made out the case for withdrawal of the original application, return of original documents and refund of the court fees.

¶11

1. Since the Court was of the opinion with the fact that if remedy is persuaded in wrong court therefore the Original Application was returned. Accordingly, as

¶12

[SBJ] (OA No.261/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶13

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶14

ORDER SHEET
per the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Courts, the court
fee paid by the applicant-bank has to be refunded.
6. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
A. The Interlocutory Application No.1483/2022 is
allowed. Original Application No.261/2022 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
B. In view of this, the time spent before this Tribunal
will be excluded from the limitation and they will be
at liberty to pursue their remedy before proper court.
C. All Original documents be returned. Registry to
refund of entire court fees to the applicant.
A. Consign the file to the Record Room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶15

[SBJ] (OA No.261/2022) Page 2 of 2

Bank of Baroda v. Gajanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Gajanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramiraj Allauddin Pathan versus a R T Housing Finance India Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Rahul

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shruti Industries

Bank of Baroda versus Sojarabai

Bank of Baroda versus Prabahkar Shankarrao Padole

Bank of Baroda versus Govind Bhguji Deokar