Redwing Industries v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT Chennai dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of office objections required 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:315/202 3
Redwing Industries & Anr V/S Canara Bank
17/05/2023
Appellant counsel present.
None of the office objections are complied. .
Hence, 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
Redwing Industries & Anr
- respondent
Canara Bank
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 331090003152023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court