R.Subramanian v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT dismissed several miscellaneous applications urged to condone significant delay in restoring an appeal. The appellant was absent, showing no interest, and the applications were disposed of for default, leading to the rejection of the main appeal.
What did the court decide?
Applications for restoration and condonation of delay dismissed; appeal rejected.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 392/2020, IA 393/2020, IA 394/2020, IA 395/2020 & 396/2020
In
AIR 810/2017
R.Subramanian ... Appellant
Vs
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & 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.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application filed to condone a delay of nearly three years in filing for restoration of an appeal should be admitted when the appellant has shown no interest in the proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
AIR 810/2017
- appellant
R.Subramanian
- respondent
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & Ors
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
23 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court