The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of the securities application as settled after the applicant submitted that the liability was fully paid and a No Dues Certificate was issued by the bank.
Securitisation Application No.222/2022 stood disposed off as settled; all pending IAs disposed accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET
| 0 S |
5.08.2 r. No. |
022 27 SA No.222/2022 |
|---|---|---|
| Classifi cation |
No. of Exh. |
|
| SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.222/2022 | ||
| 05 | Prajwal Kantilal Mithawala ..Applicant/s Versus State Bank of India ..Respondent/s Mr. Sanjay Nandure h/for Mr. K. B. Deshpande – Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent-bank. The matter is taken through VC. 1. Purshis (Exhibit-05) filed by the counsel for the applicant submitting that the applicants have settled the liability for an amount of Rs.37,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) and the said amount is paid to the respondent- bank and the loan account stands closed and No Dues Certificate dated 11thJuly, 2022 has been issued by the respondent-bank, which is taken on record. |
|
| 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the matter has already been settled between the parties amicably and the No Dues Certificate has also been issued to them. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant wishes to withdraw the Securitisation Application. |
[SBJ]
(SA No. 222/2022) Page 1 of 2
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
[SBJ] (SA No. 222/2022) Page 2 of 2
Prajwal Kantilal Mithawala
State Bank of India
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
