Dismissed

Union Bank of India v. M/S H M Enterprises

DRT16 Nov 2022OA/295/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the applicant's interlocutory application for withdrawal of the original recovery petition, noting that the claim was satisfied in full. Consequently, the original application was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Original Application and Interlocutory Applications; Original Application dismissed as withdrawn with no cost.

Union Bank of India versus M/S H M Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.30

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.1681 of 2022

¶5

In ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.295 of 2022

Union Bank of India

… Applicant

Versus

Ms Pranali Dhayalkar i/b Mr Manish D. Tiwari – Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

None for defendants.

¶11

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 16^th November 2022.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Ms Dhayalkar, representing the applicant, seeks the Tribunal’s permission to withdraw the O.A. stating that her client received the payment in the sum of Rs.20,82,289.06/- in full and final satisfaction of the applicant’s claim under the OTS scheme placed on record in I.A. No.2453 of 2022. Ms Dhayalkar seeks the Tribunal’s permission to withdraw the Original Application. Permission granted.

¶14

Interlocutory Application No.1681 of 2022 is allowed with no cost.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶17

Nidhi

¶18

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶19

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶20

ORDER SHEET

¶21

16.11.2022 Sr. No.30

¶22

		OA No.295 of 2022
classifi- cation	No. of Exh.	Union Bank of India Vs. M/s. H.M. Enterprises & Ors.
		Ms Pranali Dhayalkar i/b Mr Manish D. Tiwari – Advocate for the applicant. None for defendants.
	8	1. The learned counsel for the applicant has presented I.A. No.2590 of 2022 supported by affidavit (exhibit-9), which is taken on record. 2. Order in I.A. No.1681 of 2022 passed separately. 3. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.1681 of 2022, I.A. No.2454 of 2022 and I.A. No.2590 of 2022 stands disposed off. 4. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.1681 of 2022, Original Application No.295 of 2022 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 5. The learned Registrar is directed to refund the court fees as per Rules.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶23

Nidhi

Union Bank of India v. M/S H M Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S H M Enterprises

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

Seya Industries Limited versus Karur Vysya Bank

Techno Cart Engineers versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

Rahul Belwalkar versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Shreenath Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S H M Megabrands Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Brand Anchors