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.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010461692025

Filing Number

WP/29215/2025

Filing Date

25-Aug-2025

Registration No

WP/12202/2025

Registration Date

18-Sep-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

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 24-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DESIGN DEAL AND ORS

    Adv. Yash A Dhakad

  2. 2.POOJA G.JOSHI

  3. 3.GYANCHAND R. JOSHI

  4. 4.SALSUN PVT. LTD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BANK OF BARODA Advocate - A R BAMNE and Co

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

    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.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  10. 27-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  11. 10-Dec-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  12. 19-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  13. 19-Nov-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  14. 04-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  15. 04-Nov-2025

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  16. 06-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  17. 06-Oct-2025

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  18. 24-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  19. 24-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 25-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/12202/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case