Appeal No. 88/2017 by Canara Bank was dismissed for default due to the appellant's failure to appear despite prior directions to serve notice.
Appeal dismissed for default. Miscellaneous applications, if any, 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. 88/2017
Between
Canara Bank V/s.
Rohit Khanna &Anr.
… Appellant/s
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 13/07/2022:-
There has been no representation for the Appellant Bank for the last several dates of posting, and steps have also not been taken to serve notice on the Respondents despite there being specific direction to do so. Today also Applicant Bank is not represented through counsel nor any officer present to represent the Bank.
I assume that the Appellant Bank is not keen on proceeding with the Appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed for default.
All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-9
1
Canara Bank
Rohit Khanna & Anr
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
