Disposed
Sai Furniture v. Canara Bank
DRTSA/32/2023
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
A securitization application settled between the parties was disposed of. The Presiding Officer of the DRT passed an order quashing the SA and pending interlocutory applications.
What did the court decide?
Securitization Application No. 32/2023 and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD
¶2
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
¶3
ORDER SHEET
¶4
| 20.08. Sr. No |
2025 .32 SA No. 32/2023 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Classifi cation |
No. of Exh. |
|
| SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO. 32/2023. M/s. Sai Furniture, Through its Proprietor, Hemant S/o Chhagan Kuvar ..Applicant Versus Canara Bank and Ors.. ..Respondents Mr. Deokate Mayur G. -Advocates for applicant. Mr. Kapadia Priyesh Narendra. - Advocate for the Respondents. 1. The learned counsel for respondent has orally submitted that, this matter has been settled amicably between the parties, therefore, the respondent prayed to dispose of the Securitization Application No. 32 of 2023. 2. Heard. |
||
| 3. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I pass the following order. ORDER A. The S.A. No. 32 /2023 stands disposed of. B. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any stands disposed off. |
||
| C. Consign the file to the Record Room. (Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad |
¶5
[Ambadas] (SA No. 32/2023) Page 1 of 1
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
M/s. Sai Furniture, Through its Proprietor, Hemant S/o Chhagan Kuvar
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
AI extract
Dr. J.R. Chauhan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court