DRAT Mumbai dismissed the appeal for default due to the absence of the appellant and their counsel, assuming lack of interest in proceeding.
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
Appeal No. 278/2015
Between
Vallabhdas Jivrajbhai Patel & Ors … Appellant/s V/s.
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr R. L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
-: Order dated: 30/09/2022:-
The Appeal has been pending since 2015 and there is also an application for waiver of deposit pending consideration. There has been no appearance for the Appellant for quite some time.
There was a specific direction given to the parties to get ready for the hearing. Unfortunately, neither the Appellants nor their counsel is present.
The Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1 is present and ready for hearing also.
I assume that the Appellants are not keen on proceeding with the Appeal.
Hence, Appeal is dismissed for default.
All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-5
1
Vallabhdas Jivrajbhai Patel & Ors.
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & 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
