Disposed

Suresh Dhondiba Dhampalwar v. Maharastra Gramin Bank

DRT17 Dec 2022SA/101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an infructuous securitisation application. It directed the bank to account for past payments and consider a proposed one-time settlement, while also dismissing any pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No.101/2022 stood disposed off; respondent bank directed to account for payments and consider One Time Settlement proposal.

Suresh Dhondiba Dhampalwar versus Maharastra Gramin Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

17. Sr.	12.202 No.29	2 SA No.101/2022
Classifica tion	No. of Exh.
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.101/2022 Suresh Dhondiba Dhampalwar ..Applicant Versus Maharashtra Gramin Bank ..Respondent Mr. S.D. Jaybhar – Advocate for the applicant. Mr. J.R. Kalyankar – Advocate for the respondent-bank through VC. The matter is taken through hybrid hearing. 1. In this matter the learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the rejoinder. However, the counsel for the respondent-bank submits that they have already returned the possession and as such nothing is left in the Securitisation Application. 2. In this matter the learned counsel for the applicant is raising two issues that the payment which he has made after 13(2) notices has not been accounted for and he is ready and willing to settle the matter under One Time Settlement and according to him also the bank has replied that the One Time Settlement scheme is available. 3. In these circumstances, the Securitisation Application has become infructuous and disposed off accordingly. 4. In view of the above, I pass the following order through hybrid hearing. ORDER
		A. The Securitisation Application No.101/2022 stands

¶3

[SBJ] (SA No.101/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶4

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

¶5

disposed off.

¶6

B. However, let the applicant approach the respondent-bank for one time settlement proposal.

¶7

C. The respondent-bank shall account for the payments made by the applicant and also if the applicant give One Time Settlement proposal that should be considered as per the policy of the respondent-bank.

¶8

D. Accordingly, all the pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed off.

¶9

E. File be consigned to the record room. (Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶10

[SBJ] (SA No.101/2022) Page 1 of 2

Suresh Dhondiba Dhampalwar v. Maharastra Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Dhondiba Dhampalwar v. Maharastra Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Chandulal Tiwari versus State Bank of India

Ms Rajeshwar Krushiseva Kendra versus The Bhagyalaxmi Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sanjivani Health Center

Hotel Kp Pride versus the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda ( Dena Bank ) versus Rupesh Patil

Bank of Maharashtra versus Babaji Hariji Karpe Patil Pratishthan