Disposed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

DRT25 Apr 2026OA/325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Special National Lok Adalat before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, the applicant bank withdrew its Original Application after the respondent paid a settlement amount. The court disposed of the matter and allowed refund of court fees and return of documents.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of Original Application allowed; court fees refunded; original documents returned.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap — Service and Employment | DRT (2026)

¶1

I}EFORE THE SPECIAL AND NATIONAL LOK ADALAT ORGANISED ON 25 APRIL,2026 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. AURANGABAD AND DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHOITITY

¶2

OA No. 32512024 (Sr.no.l4l )

¶3

OA Withdrnrval

¶4

Annlicant^(s ): Bank Of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as bank / financial institution)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

l)cfendant(s) : Chantlrashckhnr Pundlik Ja gtap (hereinafter referred to as / borrower / guarantor(s))

¶7

Details of dispute / claim: The claim olthe bank i s to the tune ol Rs. 6004957.00/- with cost and inrerest.

¶8

The def-endant/s has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount of Rs. 42,50,000/- (Rupees Fourty Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) as settlement amount under OTS. Therefore, the applicant bank does not want to proceed flurther. Hence present Original Application may be withdrawn as per the Consent Terms/Pursis filed by the applicant bank which is marked as 'A'.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 return 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/Pursis filed on record /uploaded online. The delbndant is Present/absent today.

¶11

Applicant(s) * 3 tL^{* -f:"1b'myA.H.} J.v.$tlovtl-

¶12

Advoca tc r the App li /A uthoriscd Representative

¶13

l)efenda nt(s)

¶14

Advocatc for the Defendant(s) /Authorised Rep resentative

¶15

tL ql2-6

¶16

Adv. Sanjay Nandure Member

¶17

Special and National Lok Adalat

¶18

Shri. M il arand Adwant Chairman Special and National Lok Adalat

Date : 25.04.2026

Place : Aurangabad.

ORDER/AWARD

In view of the above consent terms which are filed online/offline in the present matter, the order is passed. The OA No 325/2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Refund of Court Fees is allowed as per rules. Original documents be returned as per DRT Procedure Rules.

¶24

Datc : 25.0,1.2026

¶25

(Shri. Ma ran d Adrvant) CHAIRMAN Special and National Lok Adalat

¶26

¶27

¶28

BEFORE THE SPECIAL AND NATIONALLOK ADALAT ORGANISED ON 25'h APRIL. 2026 BY THE DE BTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. AU GABAD

l, -l €r,

OA No.32512024

WITHDRAWAL PURSIS

Aonlicant(s): Bank of Maharashtra

¶33

VERSUS

¶34

Defendant(s) : Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap Prop C P Jagtap Engineers and Contractors

¶35

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

¶36

Details of dispute / claim: The claim of the bank is to the fune of Rs. 49 ,00,000/- with cost and interest.

¶37

\c^9qoo 1

¶38

The defendant/s has paid the dues in his / their loan account an amount of Rs. ,A7$OSfi0l-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

¶39

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.

¶40

Applicant(s) Defendant(s)
*
19
4
Advo fo Appli Advocate for the Defendant(s)
/Authorised Representative /Authorised Representative

¶41

Dtte : 25-4-2026

¶42

Place :Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

¶43

Restricted

¶44

ISBJ]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

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