Dismissed

Bank of India v. Uttam Namdev Janajavale

DRT25 Apr 2026OA/259/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an OA before the Special National Lok Adalat, the applicant Bank of India withdrew its application for recovery due to partial payment by the defendant under an OTS settlement scheme. The court allowed withdrawal, returned documents, and refunded court fees.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of OA No.259/2026 allowed. Court fees refunded to applicant and original documents returned to the defendant.

Bank of India versus Uttam Namdev Janajavale — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

I}EFORE THE SPECIAL AND NATIONAL LOK ADALAT OITGANISEI) ON 25 APIIIL.2026 BY THE DEBTS ITECOVERY TRIBUNAL. AURANCABAT) AND DISTRICT LEGAL SEITVICES AUTHORITY

¶2

OA No.25912026(Sr.no.230 )

¶3

OA Withdrawal

¶4

Anolicant(s) : Bank Of India (hereinafier referred to as bank / financial institution)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Defenda n t(s) : Uttam Namdev Janajavale

¶7

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

¶8

Details of dis pute / clainr : The claim olthe bank is to the tune of Rs. 5161539.00/- with cost and interest

¶9

The def-endant/s has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount of Rs. 24'00'000 /- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh only) as settlemenr amount under orS. Therefore, the applicant bank does not want to proceed further. I{ence present original Application may be withdrawn as per the c,nsent Terms/Pursis filed by the applicant bank which is marked as .A'.

¶10

'l-he request for return of original documents as per rules is perrnitted. Since the matter is before the Special and National Lok-Adalat. the court Fees be refundeci to the applicant bank as per rules,

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

L,$"'," dvocate for th plicant(s) /Authorised Representative

¶14

e-z-)\^z6

¶15

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

¶16

Defendant(s)

¶17

Advocate for the Defendant(s) /Authorised Representative 4

¶18

L///

¶19

Sh ri. Maka\6-nd Aclwa^nt Chairman Special and National^{Lok Adalat}

Date t 25.04.2026

Place : Aurangabad.

OR.t) ER/AWARD

In view of the above^{consentterms which are filed online/offline in the} present matter, the order^{is passed. The oA No 259/2026 stands disposed of} accordingly.

¶24

Refund of court^{Fees is allowed as per rules. original documentsbe} returned as^per DRT^{Procedure Rules.} L

¶25

Date : 25.04.2026

¶26

Ld// (Shri. MakAr*6d Adwant) CHAIRMAN Special and National^{Lok Adalat}

-Li0

E*k-A

BEFORE THE SPECIALAND NATIONALLOK ADALAT ORGANISED ON 25^Ih APRIL.2O26 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. AURANGABAD

¶31

OA No.259/2026

¶32

WITHDRAWAL PURSIS

¶33

Applicant(s): Bank of India

¶34

VERSUS

¶35

Defendant(s) : Uttam Jana^javale and others

¶36

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

¶37

Details of dispute / claim: The claim of the bank^is to^{the tune of} Rs.5161539.87/- with cost and interest.

¶38

The defendant/s has^paid the dues under in^{his / their loan accountan} amount of Rs.24,00,000/- @s. Twenty-Four^{Lakhs Only)as settlement amount} under OTS. Therefore, the applicant^{bank does not want to proceedfurther.} Hence present Original Application^{may be withdrawnas per the present} withdrawal Pursis filed by the bank

¶39

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

¶40

A icant(s) Defendant(s)
'sd/- sd/-
Advocate for the Defendant(s)
l* the Applicant(s)
K. on sed Representative /Authorised Representative
Dile : 25-4-2026
Ptace : Aurangabad.
\
ISBJI
^A A
+ Eqi*

Bank of India v. Uttam Namdev Janajavale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Uttam Namdev Janajavale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

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