Appellant failed to comply with registry objections to remove defects in Appeal (D) No. 589/2024 despite sufficient opportunity. The court presumed lack of interest and declined to register the appeal under DRAT Rules, 1994.
Appeal declined for registration due to failure to remove defects from the record.
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.
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
Appeal (D) No.589/2024
Narendra Vishwanath Jadhav
....Appellant
V/s.
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Ors
...Respondent
Appeal (D) No.589/2024 is listed in today’s board (06.12.2024) 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.589/2024 was filed on 20/03/2024 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 above & under the provisions of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 6 of DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 the Appeal (D) No. 589/2024 is hereby declined for Registration.
r
06.12.2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narendra Vishwanath Jadhav
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
