Disposed

Shri Rajesh Nandkumar Pawaskar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT12 Aug 2026MA/24/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant sought condonation of a 513-day delay in filing an application for restoration of a Time-Scaled Application summarily dismissed due to non-appearance. The Tribunal, accepting explanations of the pandemic and the attorney's unavailability, allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application M.A. No. 24 of 2023 was allowed subject to payment of costs to the DRT Bar Association; M.A. (D) No. 610 of 2022 was directed to be registered and disposed of afresh.

Shri Rajesh Nandkumar Pawaskar versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

12.08.2026	Exh.	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.24 of 2023*	Next date
		Mr Umesh Shetty, Senior Advocate a/w Mr V.N. Ajikumar and Mr Vikas Mulik i/b M/s. VNA Legal, Advocates for the Applicant. Ms Medha Rane and Mr Prafull Chipte i/b M/s. M & S Legal Ventures, Advocates for Respondent Bank.
		The Applicant has preferred this Misc. Application for delay of 513 days in filing the M.A. (D) 610 of 2022 for restoration of T.S.A. No.164 of 2016. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the matter was transferred to this Tribunal from DRT-3, Mumbai but no fresh date was given in the matter. After that, the Applicant was following up in the matter, however, DRT-2 was Vacant for long time therefore, the matter was adjourned from time to time and Advocate has missed the track of the matter. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the matter was kept on 28.05.2019 and 14.02.2020 for argument but the Applicant could not attend the matter as he was out of station regarding his service and the S.A. was filed through its Constituted Attorney i.e., his father who, due to his old age visit mostly his native place for health concern and could not remain present in this Tribunal. The matter was adjourned to 10.09.2020, but due to

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

Covid-19 pandemic and complete lockdown only urgent matters were taken through VC and the Applicant was not aware about the next dates. Therefore, the Applicant could not remain present and vide Order dated 01.12.2020, this Tribunal dismissed the T.S.A. for want of prosecution. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant further submitted that the Advocate for the Applicant and his family members also got infected in the Covid-19 pandemic and could not track the matter. The Applicant’s Constituted Attorney contacted his advocate in the May 2022 at that time, Applicant came to know about the impugned order dated 01.12.2020 and therefore, advocate advised the Applicant to take out the Application for restoration of T.S.A. The Applicant has taken out M.A. for setting aside Order dated 01.12.2020 and hence, prays that delay may be condoned. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the Applicant failed to give cogent reasons for condonation of delay and only taken shelter of Covid-19. The matters were taken up through VC and notices were circulated on the official website of DRT. This Tribunal has rejected the T.S.A. for want of prosecution on 01.12.2020 as no one was present. The Order was available on the

¶4

Page 2 of 3

¶5

	official website but neither the Applicant nor his Advocate has taken steps for restoration of the said Section 17 Application within the time and after expiry of 2 years, the Applicant has filed M.A. Hence, M.A. No.24 of 2023 should be dismissed. Considered the arguments of Ld. Advocate for the parties. Perused the Record. The reason shown by the Applicant is Covid 19 period as well as old age of the Applicant’s father who failed to follow the matter. That reason and ground prima-facie appears satisfactory. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, M.A. No.24 of 2023 is allowed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to DRT Bar Association, Mumbai for purchase of books and periodicals. M.A. (D) No.610 of 2022 be registered after due compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
rst - 12	Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶6

Page 3 of 3

Shri Rajesh Nandkumar Pawaskar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajesh Nandkumar Pawaskar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Manbir Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Nazim Anwar Kotwal

Union Bank of India versus Paresh Ramchandra Tuplondhe Raut

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Vishal Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Kirti Subash Mahadik

Maneesh Krishna Suvarna versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited