The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed a miscellaneous appeal by default after the appellants failed to appear, noting the proceedings had become infructuous due to insolvency proceedings.
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
Misc. Appeal No. 135/2022
Between
Zain Shaukat Sheikh & Ors.
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors.
…Respondent/s
Mr V. Deshpande, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Respondent No. 1
There is no representation for the Appellants. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the first Respondent has filed pursis stating that CIRP and IBC proceedings have been taken against the Appellants and possession of the factory premises has already been handed over to the IRP and therefore, the appeal has become infructuous.
In view of the fact that there is no representation from the Appellants. I assume that the Appellants are not interested in proceeding with the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed for default.
Misc. Application, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.
rm-29
1
Zain Shaukat Sheikh & Ors.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
