Disposed

Union Bank of India v. Saima Trading Compnay

DRT13 Nov 2023OA/1045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon payment of Rs.80 lakhs by defendants and mutual settlement, debtor files an interlocutory application seeking permission to withdraw the original recovery application; the tribunal grants permission and marks the main application as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory Application No.2222 of 2023 allowed with no order as to costs; Original Application No.1045 of 2023 dismissed as withdrawn; Court fees refunded.

Union Bank of India versus Saima Trading Compnay — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶2

Sr. No.2

¶3

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.2222 of 2023 In ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1045 of 2023

¶4

Union Bank of India … Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Saima Trading Co. & Ors. … Defendants

¶7

Ms Aparna Jagtap i/b Mrs Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for the applicant. None for defendants.

¶8

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar^th November 2023.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The parties have amicably settled the matter for the amount in the sum of Rs.80 lakhs. Defendants paid the sum of Rs.80 lakhs as set out in paragraph 4 as per letter dated 30^th June 2023. Ms Jagtap drew the Tribunal’s attention to paragraph 6 to state that the court fees is paid by applicant. The learned counsel seeks the Tribunal’s permission to withdraw the Original Application. Permission granted. Interlocutory Application No.2222 of 2023 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶11

Sd/-

¶12

(Deepak M. Thakkar)

¶13

Nidhi

¶14

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶15

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

13.11.2023

Sr. No.2

classifi -cation	No. of Exh.	OA No.1045 of 2023 Union Bank of India Vs. M/s. Saima Trading Co. & Ors.
		Ms Aparna Jagtap i/b Mrs Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for the applicant. None for defendants.
		1. Order in I.A. No.2222 of 2023 passed separately. 2. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.2222 of 2022, Original Application No.1045 of 2023 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 3. The learned Registrar is directed to refund the court fees as per Rules. Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶20

Nidhi

Union Bank of India v. Saima Trading Compnay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Saima Trading Compnay

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

Reemr Engineering Works versus Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Deepak Zambare

Icici Bank Limited versus Nitesh Eknath Ghuge

Union Bank of India versus Raees Idress Ansari

Union Bank of India versus Munmun Singha

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Ravidas Infrastructure Projects Limited