Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Techno Lube India

DRT1 Mar 2024OA/201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On leave of the Presiding Officer, the applicant sought withdrawal of the Original Application after an amicable settlement. The Tribunal allowed the interlocutory application, dismissed the Original Application as withdrawn, and directed refund of court fees and return of documents.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw Original Application; OA dismissed as withdrawn; refund of court fees ordered.

Canara Bank versus M/S Techno Lube India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.25

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.359 of 2024

¶5

¶6

ORIGINAL APPLICATION

¶7

NO.201 of 2023

¶8

Canara Bank … Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s. Techno Lube India Thakkar … Defendant

¶11

Ms Saraswati Rajpurohit i/b Mr Rajkumar Shukla – Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

None for defendant.

¶13

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 1^st March 2024.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Ms Rajpurohit, representing the applicant, submits that the parties have amicably settled the matter for the amount of Rs.38 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. Upon receipt of the amount, Ms Rajpurohit seeks the Tribunal’s permission to withdraw the Original Application. Permission granted. Interlocutory Application No.359 of 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

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

¶18

Nidhi

¶19

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶20

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

01.03.2024

Sr. No.25

		OA No.201 of 2023
classifi -cation	No. of Exh.	Canara Bank Vs. M/s. Techno Lube India Thakkar
		Ms Saraswati Rajpurohit i/b Mr Rajkumar Shukla – Advocate for the applicant. None for defendant.
		1. Order in I.A. No.359 of 2024 passed separately. 2. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.359 of 2024, Original Application No.201 of 2022 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 3. The learned Registrar is directed to (i) refund the court fees and (ii) return the original documents as per the Rules. 4. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶25

Nidhi

Canara Bank v. M/S Techno Lube India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Techno Lube India

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

M Patankar Buildcons Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of India

Mrs Jyoti Jaiswal versus Axis Bank

Joseph Edwin George versus Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Shweta

Mrs Shakuntala S Shet versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus M/S Shri Shayam Metal Manufacturing