Disposed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Babasaheb Sadashiv Gadekar

DRT25 Apr 2026OA/182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special and National Lok Adalat disposed of an application filed by Bank of Maharashtra against Babasahcb Gadekar. The bank withdrew the application after receiving partial settlement under OTP, and the court allowed withdrawal with refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the application allowed; refund of court fees permitted; original documents to be returned.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Babasaheb Sadashiv Gadekar — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

I}EFORE THE SPECIAL AND NATIONAL LOK ADALAT OII,GANISED ON 25 APRTL.2026 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TITIBUNAL. AURANGABAD AND DISTIUCT LEGAL SEI{VICES AUTHORITY

¶3

OA \o. 18212021⁽ Supp Sr.no.0l )

¶4

OA !Vithdr:rrval

¶5

Applicant(s): Bank of Maharastra

¶6

(hereinafter referred to as bank / financial institution)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Dcfendlnt(s) : Babasahcb^(lan gadhar Gadekar (hereinafter referred to as / borrower / guarantor(s))

¶9

I)ctails of dispute / claim: The claim of thc bank is to the tune ol Rs. 21.00,000/- with cost and interest.

¶10

-l'he def'endantis has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount of Rs.8,94,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Ninety Four Thousand only)^as settlement amount under OTS. Therefore, the applicant bank does not^{want to} proceed flurlher. Hence present Original Application may be withdrawn as^per the Consent Terms/Pursis filed by the applicant bank^{whichis markedas 'A'.}

¶11

The request for retum of original documents as^per rules^{is pennitted.} Since the matter is before the Special and National^{Lok-Adalat, the CourtFees} be refunded to the applicant bank as per rules,

¶12

¶13

E-.

¶14

in view of the^{above Consent Terms filed on record /uploadedonline'The} defendant is^{Present/absent today.}

¶15

Applicant(s)

?$
Advoca he Appli c
/Authorised RePresentative

¶16

Defenda nt(s)

¶17

Advocate for^{the Defendant(s)} /Authorised^{RePresentative}

¶18

zs-)ttz6

¶19

Adv. Sanjay Nandure Member Speciat and^{National Lok Adalat}

¶20

-4 Shri. M Adwant Chairman Special and^{NationalLok Adalat}

Date ; 25.04.2026

Place : Aurangabad.

ORDER/AWART)

In view of the^{above consentterms which are filed online/offline in the} present matter, the^{order is passed.TheOA No. 18212024stands disposedol'} accordingly.

¶25

Refund of Court^{Fees is allowed as per rules' Original documentsbe} returned as^{per DRT Procedure Rules'}

¶26

Date : 25.04.2026

¶27

(Shri. Maka ran d^Adrvant) CHAIRMAN Special and^{NntionalLok Adalat}

¶28

¶29

-9C

¶30

BEFORE THE SPECIAL AND NATIONAL LOK ADALAT ORGANISED ON 2sIh APRIL,2026 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. AURANGABAD

OA No.l82/2024

€*L'4

WITHDRAWAL PURSIS

Anplicant(s): Bank ol Maharashtra

¶35

VERSUS

¶36

Defendant(s) : BABASAHEB GAN GADHAR GADEKAR

¶37

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

¶38

Details of dispute / claim : The claim olthe bank is to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/- with cost and interest.

¶39

The defendanVs has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount of Rs.8,94,000/-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

¶40

The request for retum of original 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.

¶41

Applicant(s) Defendant(s) * * ,.:' Advo or the Ap Advocate for the Defendant(s) /Authorised Representa /Authorised Representative

¶42

Date z 25-4-2026

¶43

Place :Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

¶44

BEFORE THE SPECIAL AND NATIONAL LOK ADALAT ORGANISED ON 25Ih APzuL.2026 BY THE

¶45

Restricted

Bank of Maharashtra v. Babasaheb Sadashiv Gadekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Babasaheb Sadashiv Gadekar

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