Dismissed

Icici Bank Limited v. Suraj Kailash

DRT1 Dec 2023OA/353/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai allowed an interlocutory application permitting the applicant to withdraw the original recovery application following an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the underlying original application as withdrawn and directed a refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Original Application granted; OA dismissed as withdrawn; court fees to be refunded.

Icici Bank Limited versus Suraj Kailash — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.11

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.2413 of 2023 In

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION

¶6

NO.353 of 2023

¶7

ICICI Bank Ltd. … Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Suraj Kailas Gaikwad Sole Porp. of

¶10

Pranjal Enterprises

¶11

… Defendant

¶12

Ms Ketki Minhas i/b M/s. H & M Legal Asso. – Advocates for the applicant.

¶13

None for defendant.

¶14

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 1^st December 2023.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The parties have amicably settled the matter for Rs.13.18 lakhs in full and final satisfaction of applicant’s claim. Pursuant to the settlement, the applicant closed the defendant’s loan account. It is stated that the court fees is not debited from the borrowers account and therefore, entitled for refund. The learned counsel requests the Tribunal to grant permission to withdraw the Original Application. Permission granted.

¶17

Interlocutory Application No.2413 of 2023 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

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

¶20

Radhika

¶21

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶22

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

01.12.2023

Sr. No.11

		OA No.353 of 2023
classifi- cation	No. of Exh.	ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Suraj Kailash Gaikwad Sole Prop. Of Pranjal Enterprises
		Ms Ketki Minhas i/b M/s. H & M Legal Asso. – Advocates for the applicant. None for defendant.
		1. Ordre in Interlocutory Application No.2413 of 2023 passed separately. 2. In view of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.2413 of 2023, Original Application No.353 of 2023 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 3.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 the Rules.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶27

Radhika

Icici Bank Limited v. Suraj Kailash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Suraj Kailash

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

Sharad Shivkumar Pawar versus the Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Raj Shivcharan sharma versus Dcb Bank Limited

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/s Mahavir Enterprises

Pratiksha Enterprises versus Bank of Maharashtra

Canara Bank versus Jagjit Kaur Bhasin

Icici Bank Limited versus Chirag Travels Co.