DESIGN DEAL AND ORS vs BANK OF BARODA Advocate - A R BAMNE and Co — WP/12202/2025
Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 15th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010461692025
Filing Number
WP/29215/2025
Filing Date
25-08-2025
Registration No
WP/12202/2025
Registration Date
18-09-2025
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
Bench Type
Division
Category
MERCANTILE LAWS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS , BANKS ( 28 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS ( 10 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DESIGN DEAL AND ORS
Adv. Yash A Dhakad
POOJA G.JOSHI
GYANCHAND R. JOSHI
SALSUN PVT. LTD
Respondent(s)
BANK OF BARODA Advocate - A R BAMNE and Co
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
FOR CIRCULATION
HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)
HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)
HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)
DUE ADMISSION - 1
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-09-2025 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 15-04-2026 | HIGH ON BOARD (HOB) |
| 13-03-2026 | HIGH ON BOARD (HOB) |
| 12-02-2026 | HIGH ON BOARD (HOB) |
| 10-12-2025 | DUE ADMISSION - 1 |
Orders
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Design Deal against Bank of Baroda, upholding the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's (DRAT) decision that the petitioners' claim regarding adjustment of fixed deposits lacked proper pleadings in the counterclaim and could not be considered. The court found no error in the DRAT's reasoning and held that mere references to paragraphs in the written statement could not cure the deficiency in pleadings within the particularized claims of the counterclaim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Design Deal against Bank of Baroda, upholding the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's (DRAT) decision that the petitioners' claim regarding adjustment of fixed deposits lacked proper pleadings in the counterclaim and could not be considered. The court found no error in the DRAT's reasoning and held that mere references to paragraphs in the written statement could not cure the deficiency in pleadings within the particularized claims of the counterclaim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts