This appellant listed via the Tribunal’s order showing cause within two weeks why the appeal is not dismissed for failure to make substitution of parties despite earlier granted timeline.
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: KOLKATA CAMP COURT AT DRT, VISAKHAPATNAM
Appeal No. 50 of 2022
(Arising out of SA.309/2012 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
14.08.2023
Union Bank of India ..........Appellant
-Vrs-
N.A. Swami & Ors ..........Respondent
Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Swarnali Dutta, Learned counsel for the Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
It appears that the compliance of the order dt. 19.01.2023 for moving substitution application on Respondent No. 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 is not made by the appellant despite granting sufficient time.
The appellant should show cause within two weeks as to why the Appeal will not be dismissed for non prosecution.
List on 31.08.2023 for further orders.
(ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J) Chairperson
Dated: 14th AUGUST, 2023
Union Bank of India
N.A. Swami
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
