Disposed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s Sai Gajanan Beverages

DRT25 Apr 2026OA/179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a disposal order by a Special and National Lok Adalat regarding two withdrawn Original Applications. The Applicants (banks) consented to the withdrawal of proceedings after the Defendants paid a portion of the dues. The Court discharged the applications and directed the return of documents and refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of OA allowed. Court fees to be refunded. Original documents to be returned.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s Sai Gajanan Beverages — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IihlOltll TllE SPE(llAl. A\l) ,\TION'\I. LOK ,\DAl-Al' 0RGANISED ON 25 API{IL 2026 I]Y TIITi DETITS RECOVI,RY TRtBUNAL. AURANGAI]AD ANI) DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

¶2

OA )io. 17912021 (Sr.no.95 )

¶3

OA Withdrarval

¶4

Applicant(s): Ilank Of Mahar:rshtra

¶5

(hereinafter referred to as bank / financial institution)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Dcfentlant(s) : M/S Sai Ga^jana n Beverages (hereinafter ref-erred to as / borrower / guarantor(s))

¶8

Dctails of dispute / claim: The clairn of the bank is to the tune of Rs. 2103650.004 with cost and interest.

¶9

'l'he del-endant/s has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount of Rs. 34,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Fifty Thousand^only)as settlement amount under OTS. Theretbre, the applicant^{bank does not want to} proceed turther. Hence present Original Application may be^{withdrawn as per} the Consent Terms/Pursis filed by the applicant^{bank whichis marked as 'A'.}

¶10

The request for retutn of original documents^{as per rules is permitted.} Since the rnatter is before the Special^{and National Lok-Adalat,the Court Fees} be refunded to the applicant bank^{as per rules,}

¶11

in view of the above consent Terms filed on record /uproaded online. .r-he defendant is present/absent today.

¶12

Applicant(s) ds * t T6tutartu$'tt s' _; S.v.Altrqrr'f J Advoc afe Appli /Authorised Rep resen ta tive

¶13

Defen da n t(s)

¶14

Advocate for the Defendant(s) /A u thorised Rcpresen tative

¶15

2s-)o1lr5

¶16

Adv. Sanjay Nandure Member Special ancl National Lok Adalat

¶17

¶18

Shri. Makarand Adrva n t Chairman Special and National Lok Adalat

Date : 25.04.2026

Place : Aurangabad.

OITD I IVA WARI)

In view of the above consent terms which are filed online/offline in the Present matter, the order is passed The OA No t79/2021 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Refund of Court Fees is allow ed as per rules. Original documents be returned as per DRT procedure Rules.

¶24

Date : 25.04.2026

¶25

_+) (Shri. Ma Adwant) CHA IRMAN Special and National Lok Adalat

¶26

¶27

¶28

uEFORE THE SPECIALAND NATIONAL K ADALAT QRGANISED ON 25th APRrL.202 6 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. AURANGABAD

¶29

oA No. 17912024

¶30

WITHDRAWAL PURSIS

¶31

Anolicant(s): Bank ol Maharashtra

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

Defendant(s) : SAI GAJANAN BEVERAGE

¶34

( hereinafter referred to as / borrower / guarantor(s) )

¶35

Details of dispute / claim: The claim of the bank is to the tune of Rs. 42,65,000/- with cost and interest.

¶36

The defendant/s has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount of Rs. 34,50,000/-as settlement amount under OTS. Therefore, the applicant bank does not want to^proceed further. Hence present Original Application may be withdrawn as^per the^present withdrawal Pursis filed by the bank

¶37

The request for retum oforiginal documents as per rules may be^permitted. Since the matter is before the Special and National Lok-Adalat, the Court Fees may^{please be refunded} to the applicant bank as^per rules.

Applicant(s)

Defendan(s)

Adv or the Applicant(s) /Authorised Representative

¶42

Advocate for the Defendant(s) /Authorised Representative

¶43

Date : 25-4-2026

¶44

Place :Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

¶45

Restricted

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s Sai Gajanan Beverages

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s Sai Gajanan Beverages

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurjit Kaur

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Baldev Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Baltej Singh

Bank of India versus Pradeep Sharma

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh Gill

Icici Bank Limited versus Ganesh Petroleum , through Its Proprietor, Yogesh Ganesh Butale