R.Subramanian v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai dismissed multiple applications including restoration of appeal and condonation of delay. The appellant was absent and failed to prosecute, resulting in the rejection of the appeal.
What did the court decide?
Dismissal of IA 397/2020 to IA 401/2020 and rejection of the appeal.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 397/2020, IA 398/2020, IA 399/2020, IA 400/2020 & 401/2020
In
AIR 811/2017
R.Subramanian ... Appellant
Vs
Bank Of Baroda & Ors
... Respondents
24/06/2022
No representation for petitioner/appellant.
This matter is posted today for dismissal as petitioner/appellant was absent on previous hearings i.e. on 17.3.2022 & 29.4.2022.
To give an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant, matter is posted to this day under caption “for dismissal”. In spite of that, petitioner/appellant evinced no in interest in prosecuting the application.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
R.Subramanian
- respondent
Bank Of Baroda & Ors
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · June
- CNR
- 331090008112017
- Bench
- S Ravi Kumar
All orders in this case
23 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court