A Leo Francis v. Indian Overseas Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The debt recovery appellate tribunal declined the appeal due to non-compliance with objections within the prescribed time under Rule 6(4) of the DRAT Procedure Rules, 1994, despite the appellant informing that the matter was settled.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
A.IR:20/2023
A.Leo Francies & Ors V/S Indian Overseas Bank
13/04/2023
Representing counsel D. Durairaj for Appellant present.
None of the objections are complied despite considerable time given.
Appellant counsel informs that settlement process has been completed and matter has been settled.
However, no Memo filed in this respect. Since Office Objections are still not complied in the matter, the Appeal is declined in terms of Rule 6 (4) of the DRAT Procedure Rules, 1994, as none of the objections are complied in reasonable time.
Sd/Registrar
Parties & counsel
- appellant
A.Leo Francies & Ors
- respondent
Indian Overseas Bank
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 331090000202023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
5 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court