The appellant sought permission to withdraw an appeal because the property had been attached by the respondent. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.
The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
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
I.A. No. 303/2022(Stay)
In
Misc. Appeal No. 94/2022
Between
Mahesh Damu Khare … Appellant/s V/s.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & Ors.
…Respondent/s
Mr. Randhir Kumar Mandal, i/b Dujendrakumar Sharma, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Dimple Tejani, i/b M/s. M and S Legal Ventures, Advocate for Respondent.
-: Order dated: 16/02/2023:-
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the property has already been attached by the Respondent and hence, the prayers in the appeal have now become infructuous, and therefore, the Appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is disposed of as withdrawn.
Sd/Chairperson
rm-21
1
Mahesh Damu Khare
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
