The appellant failed to appear for multiple hearings. Given no representation for the appellants and the property possession having been taken over, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed for default and all miscellaneous applications were dismissed as infructuous.
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. 289/2015
Between
Sushila Bhawarlal Jain & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. Brijesh Mohan Hari & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr. I. Nasikwala a/w Mr. Shubham Morarka, i/b M/s. Vashi & Vashi, Advocate for Respondent 1 & 2.
Mr. Sunil Humbre, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
-: Order dated : 13/06/2022 :-
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents has already submitted that the Appeal has become infructuous. Since the possession of the subject property has been taken over and structure on which the Appellants have raised a claim has already been pulled down.
There is also a counsel appearing for the Official Receiver appointed by the D.R.T.-I, Mumbai.
In view of the fact that there is no representation for the Appellants for the last so many hearings, I find that they are not keen on proceeding with the Appeal.
Under the circumstances, the Appeal is dismissed for default. All other Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-28
1
Sushila Bhawarlal Jain & Ors.
Brijesh Mohan Hari & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
