In an adjournment order due to lack of instructions from Respondent No.1, the Tribunal granted time for the respondent to report and withdraw Vakalatnama if necessary.
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. 293/2013
Between
State Bank of India … Appellant/s V/s. MrsVijayalaxmi V. Ketha&Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr D. S. Paranjape, Advocate for Appellant.
MsSanjanaGhogare, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
-: Order dated: 12/07/2022:-
The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that she has no instructions from Respondent No.1 and seeks time to intimate her client and then withdraw her Vakalatnama, if necessary.
Hence, time is granted for submitting no instructions.
Post on 29.07.2022 for reporting no instructions/steps.
Sd/Chairperson
dpj-11
1
State Bank of India
Mrs Vijayalaxmi V. Ketha
Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
