Dismissed

Dcb Bank Limited v. Ms Dye O Tex Dyestuff and Intermediate Pvt. Ltd.

DRT16 Jan 2024OA/18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an interlocutory application seeking permission to withdraw an original application after an out-of-court settlement. The original recovery application was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, and court fees were directed to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw Original Application granted; Original Application dismissed as withdrawn; court fees directed to be refunded.

Dcb Bank Limited versus Ms Dye O Tex Dyestuff and Intermediate… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.23

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.40 of 2024

¶5

¶6

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.18 of 2024

DCB Bank Ltd.

… Applicant

Versus

M/s. Dye O Tex Dyestuff and … Defendant Intermediate Pvt. Ltd.

¶11

Mrs Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for the applicant. Mr G.R. Kinkhabwala – Advocate for defendant.

¶12

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 16^th January 2024.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mrs Fadia submits that the parties have amicably settled the matter for the amount in the sum of Rs.80 lakhs in full and final satisfaction of the applicant’s claim. It is stated that court fee is not debited from the borrower’s account and therefore, is entitled for refund. Mrs Fadia seeks the Tribunal’s permission to withdraw the Original Application. Permission granted. Interlocutory Application No.40 of 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

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

¶17

Nidhi

¶18

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶19

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶20

ORDER SHEET

¶21

16.01.2024 Sr. No.23

¶22

		OA No.18 of 2024
classifi -cation	No. of Exh.	DCB Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Dye O Tex Dyestuff and Intermediate Pvt. Ltd.
		Mrs Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for the applicant. Mr G.R. Kinkhabwala – Advocate for defendant.
		1. Order in I.A. No.40 of 2024 passed separately. 2. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.40 of 2024, O.A. No. 18 of 2024 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 3.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. 4. All pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of. 5. In view of the applicant’s withdrawal application, Mr
		Kinkhabwala, representing the applicant in S.A. No.375 of 2022 requests the Tribunal to dispose of the S.A. as well. Request accepted.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶23

Nidhi

Dcb Bank Limited v. Ms Dye O Tex Dyestuff and Intermediate Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dcb Bank Limited v. Ms Dye O Tex Dyestuff and Intermediate Pvt. Ltd.

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

Ms Wheels Car Customs versus Standard Chartered Bank

Lalita Rajendra Maurya versus Dcb Bank Limited

Anand Sanjay Mathur versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Union Bank of India versus Vivek R Tahmankar

Axis Bank versus Seastar Ship Management Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Yunus Mihammad Shaikh versus Profectus Capital Private Ltd. and Ors.