. Ranganatha Traders v. Hdb Financial Service Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT at Chennai declined the appeal (A.IR:217/2023) because the appellant failed to comply with office objections within the prescribed 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
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
A.IR:217/202 3
Ranganatha Traders & Ors V/S Hdb Financial Services Ltd
24/05/2023
None for Appellant.
None of the office objections are complied yet despite considerable time given.
Accordingly, 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
Ranganatha Traders & Ors
- respondent
Hdb Financial Services Ltd
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 331090002172023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
6 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court