The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal adjourned the matter to facilitate settlement between the appellant bank and the respondent mills. Pending a settlement, the appellant was directed to file a rejoinder.
Adjournment for settlement; direction to file rejoinder post-settlement discussions.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No.143/2021 Arising out of S.A.No.76/2021 (DRT-I, Delhi)
M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs
M/s Saraswati Pulse Mills
10.11.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. Mahip Datta Parasar, Ld. Counsel for appellant.
Mr. Amit Dhall, Ld. Counsel for respondents.
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Ld. Counsel for respondents states that reply has been filed. He, however, states that the respondents are trying to settle the matter with the bank.
Let both the parties sit together to settle the matter amicably. In case matter is not settled, the appellant is directed to file rejoinder before the next date.
List this matter for 06.12.2022 for recording settlement, if any, failing which for arguments.
(CHAIRPERSON)
N
M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
M/s Saraswati Pulse Mills
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
