Nitin Kalluram Dhandekar v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company through its Authorised Officer
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.
Contd Sheet
Date Office Notes, Appearances and Registrar’s order / Chairperson’s Orders P\ cJs/' 'Ta^ nn ay Gau] TTO^h V A p P eJ I a r> 9- '' pd/’ GAUpVn Fott- P—) fx/one ’Fdtt o VhcTr Pespon.de• FXelv. fD-3"?re£po'-Je*;+ ctp/^ bove PW ,^X| ' rsA^. fbirf'r’’*""'1' ■<,,fc"' **_I_** _^ueS^J_ t^e **r** _hea^1J^ '_ **h“"X-** jzr !«£ **p'** V> beFb-zr^ ^Y>e7r^fc2r^ C)?rJ<7r^m r/q^c a Won'ble G.A. cc I i /^-OGG. l^ppedJ f^o- ^/2O^3 Ge^02re q )'5'b2^zr\
FARAD
debts recovery appellate tribunal, mumrai
Mlsc Applicationin No. . of 20 I. No. (A'sc* Appeal No. of 20 '2^. Ni+'n HoJlu-Q-non D h oncie krzr 5<rAn^-... (Advocate Sint 1 (M i rirfa Wn J
Versus
• 0. EncoTre AsseE P?conS'krtJKHon Cbmpanu „ PV+ ■ Ltt> ■ fcairs . J-«..p.nd.,u
(Advocate,
J
Date Office Notes, Appearances _______ and Registrar's order I Chairperson’s Orders ss/ag/sos pxlone 'AdtS' 'ft p p -cJ) ci rM— ■ Gop+a fb-s- KesporxckrM- ■ 1 p P<, ^2 b oO / pcxl d ps. ^boo ) —_ WxaJ- C»s+ . p0 p\ e (SorV'jp _£> f/>e p 1 ' P0;rxg \S/og/ ^00=3 * 0 ( ^^zjYS'h'Zrcr^" r rxlorAC ftyis AppeilanV- , \5IC3l2c23 pJv. AnS^ po'3' lQ^'' I ^L. r>VVxe75- ' plOY^e OH>e^ ( \ej2J . Po-zr fte^pond eA-v- - chog pcvjnv’nV purBSW ^av op COS H- ^7T tQespood^^^- Vlf , tQ^jySVgrtg-
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court