The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal held that the underlying Special Appeal was already disposed of, rendering this appeal infructuous. The appeal and interlocutory applications were dismissed without a detailed finding on the merits.
Appeal and interlocutory applications dismissed as infructuous.
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
Appeal No. 14/2022
Between
M/s Rushabh Construction … Appellant/s V/s. Shyam Pannalal Jaiswal & Ors. …Respondent/s
Sandhva M, i/b Mr Anil D. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 & 2.
Mr Rajesh Nagory along with Ms Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Mr Gajendra A. Rajput, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 & 5.
-: Order dated: 21/11/2023:-
It is submitted that the S.A. has already been disposed of and
hence, this appeal has become infructuous.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.
mks-11
Sd/Chairperson
1
M/s Rushabh Construction
Shyam Pannalal Jaiswal & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
