The tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal under video conferencing because the counsel withdrew the appeal, stating it became infructuous after the original section 143(2) application was disposed of by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn because it had become infructuous.
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.303/2019 Arisnig out of S.A. No.65/201 (DRT, Jaipur)
Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Chundrai Ghar Textile & Anr.
13.12.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. Amit Mahaliyan, Ld. counse for appellant
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that he wishes to withdraw the appeal as the S.A. out of which the present miscellaneous appeal has arisen has been disposed of by the learned DRT and as such the present appeal has become infructuous.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous.
File be consigned to record.
(CHAIRPERSON)
-pk
Bank of Baroda
M/s Chundrai Ghar Textile & Anr.
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
