Bank of Maharashtra v. Mangal Nagnath Parkale
Case brief
What is this about?
An appeal was presented before the Faridabad debt recovery tribunal against an order passed by the DRT. The text contains severe OCR noise preventing extraction of specific parties, orders, or reasoning.
What the court decided
p
| \1/ 12/2023 •.. Date . \g 110/20^3 |
» M 'I . ****f : •d- Registrar (l/c) • . ' Office Notes, Appearances and Registrar's order _I _Chairperson's O • - ... _________j• P\dN-Sbuidbann ' P075" P(pP€JlCri4~ CNone Pb^r..PesporJenb • Ji, pdv. CW AppdlcmV seek oPdePecks, ?f '■ _ Adj. R^o-voJ OF de Pecte _>_ K - . J’ The Registrar is on Leave, Hence, the Board is Discharged . S.O Forcp^oJ oF^to efl/02120^41— ks , _i_4 • J i |
TT IC - 8^3 i 5 Hra’jr i ?. T \ ]/YZL] 'Z0-23 . . f < p » rders *____ |
- 5 |
|---|
FARAD
PEBTSRECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBA8
MIU Applicationln No. - _ of 20 ^kNoT
No. No- of 20 ^3 J>//V
... Appellants
A
(Advocate Q (JQ *
J
Versus
^£5. /V^iax4A /ajiJ^oXQ- QjQSS ...Respondents
(Advocate
—)
~ ' iiia.i
Data Office Notes, Appearances
andReglstrar’s order /Chairperson’s Orders
^^-23
Appeal ■ presented . by C& • ,
Advocate for Appellant with U Of rSi 9^0^ on
being aggrieved by the Impugned / .final order
passed on in S.A.H3A
by DRTrr-'fiwXO^ u/s W4 R.D.D.B^-I^l Act 199.3 / 18 of
S.A.R.F.A.E's.I. Act. 2002.
Exh - 1 Appeal Memo
S.O. for compliance lo Si / Og
i
REGISTRAR
3 I /0^/2o^ ptdv- Wemcx Oesou Fcrzr P»pp<JlarM- .
CMone ^o-a- Respocdenf-- ■ t
pd-^ .FctT p.ppe)lan+ Fber Re moved
0F cXefe^-
pdj • dt) \ ^ / io
TIG
P.T.O.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Undecipherable Appellant
- respondent
Undecipherable Respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 · Nishad Fazil F
- Order 2 — this page · Nishad Fazil F
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court