Dismissed

Mr Jitendra L Gupta v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT20 Dec 2023SA/79/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to withdraw a securitisation application after the parties reached an amicable settlement of Rs.16 lakhs. Consequently, the main application was dismissed as withdrawn and security deposited was ordered to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

Application for withdrawal allowed; Securitisation Application dismissed as withdrawn; Rs.6 lakhs directed to be refunded to the applicant.

Mr Jitendra L Gupta versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

Sr. No.35

¶3

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.2619 of 2023

¶4

¶5

SECURITISATION APPLICATION

NO.79 of 2023

Mr Jitendral Gupta

… Applicant

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. … Defendant

¶11

Mr Prince Kumar Upadhyay – Advocate for the applicant. Ms Dimple Tejani i/b M/s. M & S Legal Ventures – Advocate for defendant.

¶12

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 20^th December 2023.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The applicant seeks the Tribunal’s permission to withdraw the Securitisation Application stating that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties for Rs.16 lakhs. Ms Tejani, representing the secured creditor, confirms the settlement. The parties amicably settled the dispute before the Hon’ble DRAT and has filed consent terms dated 8^th November 2023. Mr Upadhyay requests the Tribunal to allow the applicant to withdraw Rs.6 lakhs lying with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Ms Tejani does not object. By consent of the parties, Interlocutory Application No.2619 of 2023 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

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

¶17

Radhika

¶18

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶19

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

20.12.2023

Sr. No.35

		SA No.79 of 2023
classifi- cation	No. of Exh.	Mr Jitendra L. Gupta Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
		Mr Prince Kumar Upadhyay – Advocate for the applicant.
		Ms Dimple Tejani i/b M/s. M & S Legal Ventures – Advocate for defendant.
		1. Order in I.A. No.2619 of 2023 passed separately. 2. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.2619 of 2023, Securitisation Application No.79 of 2023 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 3. The learned Registrar is directed to refund Rs.6 lakhs to the applicant as per the Rules.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶24

Radhika

Mr Jitendra L Gupta v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jitendra L Gupta v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

gauri enterprises versus aditya birla finace Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Plums Female Zone

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Steelfab Engineering Corporation

Mukta Anand Unawane versus Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Limited

Mrs Sultana Shaikh Abdul Rashid versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/s. Powder Point