The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal heard an appeal by Bank of Baroda. Respondents did not file replies or appear. The tribunal recorded the absence of respondent No.7 and ex-parte status of others, having posted the matter for an ex-parte hearing.
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. 246/2013
Between
Bank of Baroda
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Ramesh Balkrishna Kamble & Ors.
…Respondent/s
Mr. Jayesh Patel, Advocate for Appellant.
-: Order dated : 16/06/2022 :-
No reply has been filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Respondent No.7 was granted time to file reply but no reply has been filed by Respondent No.7, hence it is recorded that Respondent No.7 has no reply.
Rest of the Respondents have been served by way of substituted service by way of publication of notice in the newspapers, hence service upon them is complete. There is no appearance of rest of the Respondents. Hence, Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are called absent and set ex-parte.
Post on 11.08.2022 for ex-parte hearing.
dpj-6
1
Bank of Baroda
Ramesh Balkrishna Kamble
Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
