The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous after respondent counsel established that the underlying sale, which the impugned interim order sought to stay, had failed, rendering further relief impossible.
The appeal was 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
I.A. No. 360/2022 (WoD)
In Misc. Appeal No. 63/2022
Between
Ravindra Rupnarain Chand …Appellant/s V/s.
Phoenix Arc Private Limited & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr. Charles D’Souza along with Ms. Mahima S., Advocate for Respondent.
-: Order dated: 17/03/2023:-
None appears for the Appellant.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent Bank which has been set ex-parte submits that the Appeal has become infructuous for the reason that the sale which was sought to be stalled by means of the relief sought has now failed and therefore, the Appeal has become infructuous.
The order which stands challenged is by the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai refusing to grant an ad-interim relief with regard to the sale.
In view of the fact that the sale has failed and the relief sought cannot be implemented any further. The appeal has become infructuous and the Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous if are dismissed as Applications, any, infructuous.
Sd/Chairperson
psa-15
1
Ravindra Rupnarain Chand
Phoenix Arc Private Limited
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
