Dismissed

Icici Bank Limited v. Ravindra Ramdas Khanavkar

DRT19 Apr 2024OA/460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an interlocutory application seeking permission to withdraw an outstanding Original Application after the parties settled the dispute for Rs. 7.05 lakhs. The Original Application was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to refund court fees.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Original Application; it is dismissed as withdrawn; court fees directed to be refunded.

Icici Bank Limited versus Ravindra Ramdas Khanavkar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.28

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.787 of 2024 In ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.460 of 2024

ICICI Bank Ltd.

… Applicant

Versus

Ravindra Ramdas Khanavkar … Defendant

¶9

Ms Ketki Minhas i/b M/s. H & M Legal Asso. – Advocates for the applicant.

¶10

None for defendant.

¶11

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 19^th April 2024.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The parties have amicably settled the matter for Rs.7.05 lakhs. It is stated that the court fees is not debited from the borrower’s account and therefore, entitled for refund. Ms Minhas requests the Tribunal to grant permission to withdraw the Original Application. Permission granted.

¶14

Interlocutory Application No.787 of 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

Radhika

¶17

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

¶18

19.04.2024 Sr. No.28

¶19

		OA No.460 of 2024
classifi -cation	No. of Exh.	ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Ravindra Ramdas Khanavkar
		Ms Ketki Minhas i/b M/s. H & M Legal Asso. – Advocates for the applicant. None for defendant.
		1. Order in Interlocutory Application No.787 of 2024 passed separately. 2. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.787 of 2024, Original Application No.460 of 2024, stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 3.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. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶20

Radhika

Icici Bank Limited v. Ravindra Ramdas Khanavkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Ravindra Ramdas Khanavkar

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Shahaj Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Bakelite Enterprises

Padma Sameer Pandya versus Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Nagpur

Icici Bank Limited versus Vishal Vinod Luthira

Mr Abdul Rehman Gulam Mohamed Patni and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Bapu Shankar Nikam versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited