Disposed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Ms Jothi Traders Prop Mrs R Schitra

DRT25 Aug 2023TA/486/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transferred application for recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal updated the claim status to 'settled out of Court' after the defendants remitted a sum of Rs.31,68,000 pursuant to an out-of-court settlement memo and pronounced the application disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The OA claim treated as settled out of Court; application disposed without costs; registry to verify signatures and refund court fee.

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Ms… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

T.A. No. 486 of 2023

25.08.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 25^th day of August, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 486 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA No.428 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.486 of 2023)

¶9

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Mint Street Branch, No.21, Nainiappa Naicken Street, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

M/s. Jothi Traders,

¶13

Rep. by its Prop. Mrs. R. Suchitra, W/o. Mr. V. Ramesh, No.57/23, 4^th Street, K.C.Garden,

Pervaellore,

Chennai – 600 082.

Also at

No.18, Pilliyar Koil Street, Redhills, Chennai – 600 052.

¶18

Mrs. R. Suchitra, (Prop. Of M/s. Jothi Traders) W/o. V. Ramesh, No. 115/42, 2^nd Floor, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶19

Mr. V. Ramesh, S/o Late. Venketapathy, No. 115/42, 2^nd Floor, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ….Defendants

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K. Sarath Babu

T.A. No. 486 of 2023

25.08.2023

ORDER

This OA is filed by the applicant bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,46,986/together with future interest and costs.

¶27

A memo is filed by applicant bank stating therein that during pendency of the above OA, defendants have approached applicant bank for settlement under OTS on 17.11.2022, which was accepted by applicant bank and accordingly, defendants had remitted a sum of Rs.31,68,000/- towards full and final settlement of the OA claim. Hence, applicant bank prayed that the OA claim may be treated as settled out of Court and also field another memo praying for refund of eligible Court fee.

¶28

Perused. Memo is taken on record. Allowed. In the result, this OA is disposed of as settled out of Court, however without costs. All other interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed. Memo is signed by AGM of applicant bank and defendants 1 to 3. Registry is directed to verify the signatures and process refund of court fee as per extant guidelines.

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25^th day of August, 2023)

¶30

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Ms Jothi Traders Prop Mrs R Schitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Ms Jothi Traders Prop Mrs R Schitra

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

State Bank of India versus Saai Sharavanan

State Bank of India versus Om Sri Sidhivinayagar Agency

Canara Bank versus M/S Sukrithi Ventures

Joseph versus Bajaj finance Limited

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Ms Aran Kitchen World India Private Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms S L Anandan Stores and Contractors