Ramalingam K v. Hdb Financial Services Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai declined to register the filed appeal by the Appellant since the Respondent's office objections were not complied with within the time granted, invoking Rule 6(4) of the DRAT Procedure Rules.
What did the court decide?
Appeal declined for non-registration due to non-compliance with office objection time limits.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
A.IR:244/2022
K.Ramalingam V/S A.O.,Hdb Financial Services Ltd
04/11/2022
None for Appellant.
None of the Office Objections complied despite considerable time given on 02/09/2022, 19/09/2022, 06/10/2022 and 25/10/2022.
Declined to register the Appeal in terms of Rule 6(4) of the DRAT Procedure Rules (1994) as office objections not complied in reasonable time.
Appeal is declined.
Sd/-
Registrar
Parties & counsel
- appellant
K.Ramalingam
- respondent
A.O.,Hdb Financial Services Ltd
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · November
- CNR
- 331090002442022
- 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