The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default as it had become infructuous since the impugned sale notice was no longer in existence after a fresh notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued, and there was no representation from the appellant.
The appeal was dismissed for default.
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
Misc. Appeal No.27/2017
Between
M/s. Shree Oshiya Impex Pvt. & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s
Mr A.R. Bamne, i/b M/s. A.R. Bamne & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1.
-: Order dated: 26/08/2022:-
There is no representation for the Appellants.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submits that S.A. No. 409/2016 which stands impugned in Appeal has already been disposed of in view of the fact that the Respondent Bank has issued afresh notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and Sarfaesi measures which stand challenged in the S.A. is no longer in existence.
Under the circumstances, the Appeal itself has become infructuous, moreover, in view of the fact that there is no representation for the Appellants, there is no point in keeping it pending.
Hence, the Appeal is dismissed for default.
All other Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-13
1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Shree Oshiya Impex Pvt. & Ors.
Bank of Baroda
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
