Disposed

Bank of India v. Rajesh Marotrao Pawar

DRT25 Apr 2026OA/260/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special and National Lok Adalat disposed of an original application filed by Bank of India against Rajesh Pawar regarding a loan dispute. The application was withdrawn due to the partial settlement of dues under an Old Terms Scheme (OTS). Court fees were refunded, and original documents were returned.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of Original Application No. 260/2026 allowed; refund of court fees permitted; original documents returned.

Bank of India versus Rajesh Marotrao Pawar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

I}I'FORE, THE SPECIAL AND NATIONAL LOK ADAI,A'I' ORGANISED ON 25 APRIL.2026 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY'I'ITIBUNAL AURANGABAI) ANI) DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTTIORITY

¶2

OA No. 260/2026^(Sr.no.229 )

¶3

OA Withdrawal

¶4

Arrrrlic:rnt(s): Bank Of India (hereinalter referred to as bank / financial institution)

¶5

VEITSUS

¶6

Defendant(s)^{: Rajesh Marotrao} P:rwar (hereinafter referred to as / borrower / guarantor(s))

¶7

l)ctails of disputc / claim: The claim of the bank is to the tune of Rs. 5250,130.00/- with cost and interesr.

¶8

The def-endant/s has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount ol Rs. 24,50,000 /- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Fifty Thousand only) 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 Hence present Original Application may be withdrawn as per the Consent Terms/Pursis filed by the applicant bank which is marked as 'A'.

¶9

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

¶10

in view of the above Consent Terms filed on record /uploaded online. The det'endant is PresenVabsent

¶11

A gpticant(s)
k 0654
l"
,, ,w
I
Advocate for the Applicant(s)
/Authorised Representative

¶12

q-6 25\Lt\

¶13

Adv. Sanjay Nandure Member

¶14

Special and National Lok Adalat

¶15

Defendant(s)

¶16

Advocate for the Defendant(s) /Authorised Representative

¶17

¶18

/ (_D/ Sh ri. lVla he+aird Adwant Chairman Special and National Lok Adalat

Date t 25.04.2026

Place : Aurangabad.

ORDERJAWARD

In view of the above consent terms which are filed online/offline in the present matter, the order is passed. The OA No 260/2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Retund of Court Fees is allowed as per rules. Original documents be retumed as per DRT Procedure Rules.

¶24

l)ate : 25.0,1.2026

¶25

(Shri. Ma Adrva n t) CHAIRMAN Special and National Lok Adalat

¶26

¶27

-7q
[iL+

¶28

BEFORE THE SPECIALAND NATIONAL LOK^ADALAT ORGANISED ON 25th APRIL.2O26 BY^THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. AURANGABAD

¶29

OA No.26012026

¶30

WITHDRAWAL PURSIS

¶31

Applicant(s): Bank of lndia

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

Defendant^(s) : Ra^jesh Pawar and others ( hereinafter referred to as / borrower / guarantor(s) )

¶34

Details of dispute / claim: The claim^{of the bank is to the tune of} Rs.5250431 .02l- with cost and interest.

¶35

The defendant/s has^paid the^{dues under in his / theirloanaccountan} amount of Rs.24,50,000/-^{(Rs. Twenty-Fourtakhs Fifty ThousandOnly)as} settlement amount under OTS.^{Therefore, the applicant bank does not want to} proceed further. Hence present Original^{Application may be withdrawnas per the} present withdrawal Pursis filed by^{the bank}

¶36

The request for retum of^{original documentsas 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} icant bank as per rules.

¶37

licant(s)
v ,f sd/- 'q; <br>1,
Advocate for the AP
/Authorised R * 0654
Date : 25 2026
Place: urangabad.

¶38

Defendant(s)
sd/-
Advocate for the Defendant(s)
/Authorised Representative

¶39

[SBJ]

Bank of India v. Rajesh Marotrao Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Rajesh Marotrao Pawar

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