Dattatray Maruti Khune v. State Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT Mumbai declined registration of an appeal because the appellant was absent and failed to cure registry defects despite sufficient opportunity.
What did the court decide?
The Appeal (D) No. 1519/2023 is hereby declined for Registration.
What the court decided
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Mumbai
C
.J • i i k
Appeal (D) No.1519/2023
Dattatray Maruti Khnune & Anr Appellant V/s. State Bank of India Respondent
Appeal (D) No.1519/2023 is listed in today’s board (14.05.2024) before the Registrar at 02.30 PM for compliance/removal of defects. The said Board is displayed in Public Notice on the website of DRT/DRAT and also on the Notice Board of DRAT Mumbai.
None present for the Appellant when the matter was called out.
Appeal (D) No.1519/2023 was filed on 31/08/2023 and certain objections were raised by the registry for compliance/removal of defects. However, despite sufficient opportunity, appellant failed to comply with/remove the defects till date.
Therefore, it is presumed that, the appellant is not interested in pursuing with the matter.
In view of Pursis filed for withdrawal & under the provisions of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 6 of DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 the Appeal (D) No. 1519/2023 is hereby declined for Registration.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal should be declined for registration when the appellant fails to remove defects and is absent.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Dattatray Maruti Khnune & Anr
- respondent
State Bank of India
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court