The Tribunal dispensed with the need to serve notice on Respondents 1 to 11. Since notice on Respondent 12 sufficed for the specific relief sought, the appeal was taken on file for the next hearing.
Notice to Respondents 1 to 11 is dispensed with; appeal taken on file pending application for condonation of delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT : MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 65/2021 (CoD)
In Appeal on Dairy No. 18/2021
Between
Mr. Harish Jayantilal Pandya & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
M/s Balaji Cars (I) LLP & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr. P.R. Diwan, a/w Mr. Mittal Munoth, i/b M/s. Kookada & Associates, Advocate for Appellants.
-: Order dated : 28/06/2022 :-
The Appellants submit that the impugned order is made by the 12th Respondent and therefore the service of notice on the 12th Respondent alone would suffice and that Respondent No. 1 to 11 were not served since there is no specific relief sought against them.
In view of the said submission made by the counsel appearing for the Appellant, the notice to the Respondent No. 1 to 11 is dispensed with at the risk of the Appellant. In view of the service of notice on the Respondent No. 12, the Appeal shall be taken on file.
Post on 20.07.2022 for hearing on the application for condonation of delay.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-14
1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notice of appeal requiring service on all respondents or a subset of them.
Mr. Harish Jayantilal Pandya & Ors.
M/s Balaji Cars (I) LLP & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
