This is a procedural order in an appeal under the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court directed the appellant to either serve Respondent No.3, found absent, or move to strike them off the record, as they were not deemed a necessary party.
Appellant directed to serve Respondent No.3 or strike them off the record with a post date.
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. 127/2012
Between
HDFC Bank V/s.
… Appellant/s
State Bank of India & Ors. …Respondent/s
Ms. Aparna Jagtap, i/b Ms. Uma S. Fadia, Advocate for Appellant.
-: Order dated : 01/04/2022 :-
There is no representation for Respondents.
It is seen that Respondent No.3 has not been served.
Learned counsel for Appellant submits that Respondent No.3 is not a necessary party.
Appellant shall take immediate steps to serve the Respondent No.3 or to strike off the Respondent No.3 from the party of array.
Post on 13.06.2022 for steps.
Sd/Chairperson
dpj/mks-7
1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Respondent No.3 is a necessary party to the appeal and if not served, whether to strike them off or serve them.
HDFC Bank
State Bank of India & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
