Nirmla Sharma v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, declined registration of Diary No. 80/2022 filed by appellant Nirmala Krishna Sharma under Rule 6(4) of DRAT Rules, 1994. The Tribunal held that despite reasonable opportunities, the appellant failed to remove defects and remained absent, presuming lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The matter was disposed of without hearing.
What did the court decide?
Diary No. 80/2022 declined for registration.
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
Diary No. 80/2022
Nirmala Krishna Sharma
Appellant
V/s.
Canara Bank & Ors.
Respondents
The Today'sBoardi.e.15.09.2022at11.30Hrs.for matters listed before the Registrar for removal of defects/ complianceis displayedinPublicNoticeonthe website of DRT/DRATand also onNoticeBoard of DRAT,Mumbai.
No representationforthe appellantwhenmatterwas called.
This DiaryNo. 80/2022was lodgedon04/04/2022. Despitegrantingreasonableopportunitiesforremovalof defects the appellantfailedtoremovethedefectsnoticed bytheofficeandremaining absent.Hence,itispresumed that,the appellantisnotinterestedinprosecutingthe matter.
Inviewof above&undertheprovisionof subRule(4)of Rule 6 DRAT (Procedure)Rules,1994thisDiaryNo. 80/2022is hereby declinedforregistration.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a diary number filed by an absent appellant raising defects can be registered under Rule 6(4) when defects were not removed despite opportunities.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Nirmala Krishna Sharma
- respondent
Canara Bank & Ors.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · September
- CNR
- 271090000802022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court