A.K. Maxx Properties, Represented by its Partner, Sri. Ajay Prasad. G v. Icici Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Order declining appeal in DRAT due to non-compliance of office objections within the reasonable time under Rule 6(4) of the DRAT Procedure Rules 1994.
What did the court decide?
Appeal declined under Rule 6(4) of the DRAT Procedure Rules 1994.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
A.IR:123/202 3
A.K. Maxx Propertis & Anr V/S Icici Bank Ltd
17/05/2023
None for Appellant.
None of the office objections are complied yet.
Appeal is declined in terms of Rule 6(4) of the DRAT Procedure Rules 1994 as office objections not complied in reasonable time.
Sd/Registrar
Parties & counsel
- appellant
A.K. Maxx Properties & Anr
- respondent
Icici Bank Ltd
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
5 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court