Dismissed

Santosh Trimbakrao Pawar v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT16 Mar 2024SA/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application, the applicant argued that a partial payment was not reflected in the 13(2) notice and offered to settle the matter for Rs. 6 lac, arguing the borrower's liability is admitted. The Presiding Officer dismissed the application and disposed of pending IAs accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No.32/2022 stands dismissed. All pending IA in the proceeding are disposed of accordingly.

Santosh Trimbakrao Pawar versus Bank of Maharashtra — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶2

	16.03. Sr. No	2024 .36 S.A.No.32/2022
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.32/2022 Santosh Trimbakrao Pawar .. Applicant Versus Bank Of Maharashtra .. Respondent
		Mr. Ambade Pradeep V - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mishra Atul A. – Advocate for respondents 1. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they have deposited an amount of Rs. 3.85 lac with the bank and same is not reflected int eh 13(2) notice or in the possession notice issued thereafter.
		2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the loan of rs. 10.50 lac was taken and they paid the instalment up to 2015 regularly. The account became NPA on 31.05.2016 as argued by the learned counsel for the bank. There was no objection raised to the 13(2) notice dated 09.02.2017, symbolic possession was also taken.
		3. It is only the possession notice dated 15.01.2020 which is under challenge. The learned counsel for the applicant they are ready and willing to settle the matter for an amount of Rs. 6 lac. The 13(2) notice was issued for Rs. 10 lac in the year 2016 and already more than 7 years have been passed and still the borrower is offering Rs. 6 lac only. 4. It clearly shows that the borrower has admitted his liability and the default committed by him. I leave it to the bank to

¶3

[APK] (SA No.32/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶5

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶6

settle this account at the amount as per their own policy. 5. In view of the above, I pass the following order : ORDER A. The Securitisation Application No.32/2022 stands dismissed B. All pending IA in the proceeding, if any are disposed of accordingly. C. Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded on official web-site. (Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶7

[APK] (SA No.32/2022) Page 2 of 2

Santosh Trimbakrao Pawar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Trimbakrao Pawar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Sandu Khan Mumtaz Khan

M/S Anant Industries versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sumlax Biocoals

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Ashokrao Patil

Shanti Jwellers versus State Bank of India

Orbit Electromech India Private Limited versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.