The tribunal granted time for the first respondent Bank to engage counsel. None appeared, leading to an ex-parte order. The other respondents were also declared absent. An adjournment was posted for ex-parte hearing on 07.10.2022. The order discharged no substantive legal question.
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. 356/2015
Between
MrSajayHarbanslal Arora
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Bank of Maharashtra &Anr.
…Respondent/s
Mr M.M. Avhad, Advocate for the Appellant.
-: Order dated: 13/07/2022:-
Ld. Counsel appearing for the first Respondent Bank had submitted no instructions. Time was granted for the first Respondent Bank to engage another counsel but none appeared today.
Still, no appearance for the first Respondent Bank and consequently the first Respondent Bank is called absent and set ex-parte. The other Respondents have not appeared despite receipt of summons and therefore, they are also called absent and set ex-parte.
Post on 07.10.2022 for ex-parte hearing.
Sd/-
Chairperson
mks-13
1
Mr Sajay Harbanslal Arora
Bank of Maharashtra
Anr
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
