Mahesh Duhlani v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT adjourned the matter for final hearing to grant an opportunity to the counsel for the Respondent Bank, who had not appeared. The Appellant had deposited the agreed amount and sought possession of secured assets.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
Appeal No. 26/2018
Between
Mahesh Duhlani … Appellant/s V/s. Union Bank of India & Anr. …Respondent/s
Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Appellant.
-: Order dated: 05/09/2022:-
Today, the matter stands posted for final hearing.
There is no representation for the 1st Respondent Bank. A Vakaltanama has been filed for the Corporation Bank, which has been substituted by the Union Bank of India.
The matter is of 2018, and the Appellant has deposited Rs.1,12,16,685.40 and seeks to get possession of the secured assets.
Since there is no representation for the Bank, I feel that one more opportunity needs to be granted to the counsel for the Respondent Bank to make his submissions.
Post on 18.10.2022 for the final hearing.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mahesh Duhlani
- respondent
Union Bank of India
Coram
Ashok Menon
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court