Disposed

Bansi Mall Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

DRT8 Apr 2024SA/134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant filed a Special Appeal (SA). Counsel submitted that a settlement was reached between the Applicant and the Respondent Bank, covered by demand drafts. The court approved the disposal of the matter based on the settled agreement, citing precedents permitting amicable settlements.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal is disposed of as settled along with pending interventional applications.

Bansi Mall Management Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

08/04/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *SA No.134/2022* *Bansi Mall Management Company Pvt.* *Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank*	Next date
		T1 MUMBA Advocate Nitin Thakkar, Advocate, Zal Andhyarjna, Advocate Gaurang Kinkhabwala, Advocate Puneet Gogad, Advocate Dasgupta, Advocate Ankita Yadav, Advocate Devdatta i/b Link Legal appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Charles D’Souza a/w Advocate Rupak Sawanikar, a/w Advocate Sushila Vichare i/b Orbit Law Services appeared for the Respondent no.1. Advocate Anisha D. i/b NDB Law appeared for Union Bank of India. Counsel Rajesh Nagory, Advocate Shakib, Advocate Deshmukh i/b Vidhi Partners appeared for the Intervener.	I
D		1. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the settlement has arrived with the Respondent Bank including all the consortium members and he tendered the DDs of Rs.4.76 crore and Rs.423.64 crores to Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that the settlement has already been

¶2

¶3

DRT1 MUMBAI
approved
however,
the
same
shall
be
confirmed after the realization of the DDs.
3.
Ld. Counsel of both sides submits that
the present SA may be disposed of in terms of
the settlement arrived between the parties.
4.
In view of the submissions of both sides
since a settlement has arrived between the
parties thus, in view of the judgment of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Satish Chand
Gupta & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India, W.P. (C)
2588/2010 as well as judgment in Smt.
Harpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs. M/s Fullerton
India
Credit
Company
Ltd.
W.P.
(C)
No.379/2018, wherein it is held that:
“...the parties to a proceedings are
at a liberty; at any stage thereof,
to
arrive
at
an
amicable
settlement
in
relation
to
the
subject matter of the dispute, and
it does not lie in the mouth of the
judicial authority to obstruct or
impede the amicable settlement…”
(emphasis provided)
5.
Therefore, the present SA is hereby
disposed of as settled alongwith pending IAs.
6.
File be closed and consigned to the
record room.
P.O.
DRT-I

¶4

Bansi Mall Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansi Mall Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Suhas Chandrakant Malik

State Bank of India versus Mr Vijaykumar Hiralal

Canara Bank versus Neeta Vaman Shettigar

Indian Bank versus Epicure Hospitality LLP

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Nac Interiors

Trupti Lingras versus State Bank of India