R Dilip Kumar Son of Raman v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal in Chennai permitted the withdrawal of an interim order application against a Sales Application, subsequently dismissing the withdrawn application and rejecting the pending appeal as the sales transaction had not occurred.
What did the court decide?
Permission accorded to withdraw the interim order application; Appeal rejected as infructuous.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 182/2023
in
A.IR:444/2023
R.Dilip Kumar V/S Union Bank Of India
07/11/2023
Ld. Counsel for petitioners/appellants represented that this appeal is preferred against an interim order passed in SA 211/2023 by Tribunal below and the said SA is dismissed as infructous by Tribunal below since sale did not take place and sought permission to withdraw this Application and made an endorsement to that effect in the application. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank also filed a Memo to that effect. Permission is accorded.
In view of the same, Application IA 182/2023 (Waiver) is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, Appeal AIR (SA) 444/2023 is rejected.
Sd/Chairperson
Parties & counsel
- appellant
R. Dilip Kumar
- respondent
Union Bank Of India
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
11 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court