In this interim order, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal adjourned the appeal to grant time to the appellant to file an application regarding documents produced by its counsel. The respondent parties are mentioned as absent.
Time granted to the appellant for filing an application.
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. 324/2006
Between
Bank of Baroda
… Appellant/s
V/s.
M/s. Nav Chandika Upsa Jalsinchan Sahakari … Respondent/s Sanstha Maryadit, Chapadgaon & Anr.
Ms Sabeena Mahadik, Advocate for Appellant.
-: Order dated: 22/07/2022:-
Both the Respondents have been served. Hence, the Respondents are called absent and set ex-parte.
The learned counsel for the Appellant has produced documents along with the translated copies. The learned counsel for Appellant seeks time to file an application to receive those documents.
Time is granted.
Post on 28.07.2022 for steps / ex-parte hearing.
dpj-19
1
Bank of Baroda
M/s. Nav Chandika Upsa Jalsinchan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Chapadgaon
Anr.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
