Allowed

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. Santosh Sarda

DRT6 Feb 2024OA/327/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon an interlocutory application seeking permission to withdraw an original application citing an amicable settlement, the Presiding Officer of the DRT allowed the withdrawal, registered the original application, and directed the refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory Application allowed; Original Application dismissed as withdrawn and registered; court fees directed to be refunded.

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Santosh Sarda — 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.132 of 2024

¶5

¶6

ORIGINAL APPLICATION (D) NO.252 of 2021

¶7

Bank of Baroda … Applicant Versus

¶8

Santosh Sarda … Defendant

¶9

Mr Madhur Rai i/b M/s. PRS Legal – Advocates for the applicant. None for defendant.

¶10

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 6^th February 2024.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Mr Rai submits that the parties have amicably settled the matter for the amount in the sum of Rs.13.28 crores 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. Mr Rai seeks the Tribunal’s permission to withdraw the Original Application. Permission granted. Interlocutory Application No.132 of 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

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

¶15

Nidhi

¶16

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶17

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

06.02.2024

Sr. No.23

		OA(D)No.252 of 2021
classifi -cation	No. of Exh.	Bank of Baroda Vs. Santosh Sarda
		Mr Madhur Rai i/b M/s. PRS Legal – Advocates for the applicant. None for defendant.
	6	1. Mr Rai has presented I.A. No.132 of 2024 supported by affidavit (exhibit-6), which is taken on record. 2. Order in I.A. No.132 of 2024 passed separately.
		3. In view of order passed in I.A. No.132 of 2024,
		Original Application (D) No.252 of 2021 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 4. The learned Registrar is directed to refund the court fees as per the Rules. 5. The learned Registrar is directed to register the Original Application. 6. All pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶22

Nidhi

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. Santosh Sarda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. Santosh Sarda

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

Dimple Arcade Premises Chsl versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Anand M Chaturvedi

Bairi Rakesh Ramchandram versus the Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Ritesh Vinod Shivotia

Bank of India versus M/s Anita Embroidery Enterprises

Bank of India versus M/s Yogita Fusion Enterprise