Allowed

Bank of India v. Sandip Madhukar Narkar

DRT4 Sept 2025APPEAL/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune allowed an appeal filed by Bank of India to set aside the Registrar's order declining registration of an Original Application. The Tribunal permitted the bank to cure the delay in removing objections and cost compensation was awarded to a society.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Original Application to be registered within three weeks; Cost of Rs.5000 awarded to Bharatiya Stri Shakti Jagran.

Bank of India versus Sandip Madhukar Narkar — Public Procurement and Tenders | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PUNE (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT, PUNE)

¶2

ORDER

¶3

Chamber Appeal No. 02/2023

¶4

(Decided on 4^th September, 2025)

Bank of India

..Appellant

Versus

Mr. Sandip Madhukar Narkar & Others ..Respondents

¶9

This appeal emerges from Order dated 1^st December, 2022 passed by the Ld. Registrar declining Original Application L.No. L.-No.502/2019 (D-No.324/2019).The appellant has sought relief to set aside the order passed by the Ld. Registrar and restore the Original Application L.-No.502/2019 (D-No.324/2019).

¶10

The appellant herein has filed Original Application for recovery of loan amount from the respondents. Objections were raised by the Ld. Registrar but the learned Advocate for appellant herein failed to remove the office objections within prescribed period. Therefore, the Ld. Registrar declined to register the same.

¶11

At this juncture, it is to be noted that principle of natural justice is that the client shall not suffer for negligent act of the Advocate. In the present case, the learned Advocate for the appellant herein failed to remove the office objections. The appellant herein has filed Original Application for recovery of loan amount which is public money. If an opportunity to remove office objections is given to the appellant, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as they will get an opportunity to contest the same.

¶12

In view of these observations, appeal deserves to be allowed. Therefore, I pass the following order:

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

A. The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶16

B. The appellant bank herein is permitted to remove office objections and get Original Application L.-No.502/2019 (DNo.324/2019) registered/numbered within three weeks from today.

¶17

C. The appellant shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- to Bharatiya Stri Shakti Jagran within two weeks from today.

¶18

D. This application is disposed of.

¶19

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 04.09.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶20

(KAUR)

Bank of India v. Sandip Madhukar Narkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sandip Madhukar Narkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S. M P Enterprises and Associates Ltd.

Uco Bank versus Ramchandra Nagnath Salgar

Bank of India versus Shivaji Bhandari

Bank of India versus Shraddha S. Dalvi

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sanjay Parkar

State Bank of India versus Kaushalya