Dismissed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr Eknath Bhaurao Mahalkar

DRT22 Nov 2023OA/418/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal permitted the applicant bank to withdraw its Original Application for recovery of mortgage-related funds, noting its lack of jurisdiction to entertain the mortgage suit itself. The application was returned to the appropriate civil court, and court fees were refunded.

What did the court decide?

Original Application returned; mortgage suit to be filed in civil court; court fees refunded.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr Eknath Bhaurao Mahalkar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

	22.11. Sr. No	2023 .127 OA No. 418/2022
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 418/2022
		Bank of Maharashtra ..Applicant Versus Mr. Eknath Bhaurao Mahalkar ..Defendants Mr. S.P. Talegaonkar - Advocate for the applicant. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. The applicant bank has filed the Original Application for recovery of amount on the basis of mortgage.
		2. The Tribunal has no power to entertain the*mortgage suit* and only the application for recovery of money can be entertained for which limitation is three years. 3. The counsel for the applicant bank seeks permission to withdraw the Original Application with liberty to file mortgage suit. Permitted. 4. In view of the above, I pass the following order ORDER
		A. The Original Application No.418/2022 be returned to the applicant bank to be presented in proper court and the time from filing of this Original Application till pleadings are returned will be excluded from the limitation. B. The Registry is directed to return the entire pleadings to the bank for availing them appropriate remedy of filing the mortgage suit before the appropriate civil court, except the

¶3

[SBJ] (OA No.418/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶5

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶6

ORDER SHEET

¶7

orders passed by this Tribunal (Order sheets) and Vakalatnama.

¶8

C. Registry is directed to keep the acknowledgment by the bank along with the true copy of the original memo.

¶9

D. Registry is also directed to refund the full court fees which the applicant bank has deposited in this Tribunal as per procedure.

¶10

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶11

[SBJ] (OA No.418/2022) Page 2 of 2

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr Eknath Bhaurao Mahalkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr Eknath Bhaurao Mahalkar

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

Surya Nashik Agro Industries versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Abhijit Suresh Meghe versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Sau Meera Shankar Bhosale versus State Bank of India

Smt Hirabai Baburao Chavan versus Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Rajesh Venkatrao Gore versus Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce)

Union Bank of India versus Sunar Dinkar Ingole