Rajesh Amrutlal Shah v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT Registrar, Mumbai, refused to register Appeal No. 2136/2023 due to the appellant's non-compliance with registry objections regarding defects. The court applied Rule 6 Sub Rule (4), presuming lack of interest.
What did the court decide?
The appeal number 2136/2023 was declined for registration.
What the court decided
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
Appeal (D) No.2136/2023
Rajesh Amrutlal Shah & Anr
....Appellant
V/s.
Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)
...Respondent
Appeal (D) No.2136/2023 is listed in today’s board (09.08.2024) 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.
< J.
None present for the Appellant when the matter was called out.
Appeal (D) No. 2136/2023 was filed on 24.11.2023 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.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal numbered 2136/2023 should be registered despite the appellant's failure to comply with registry objections to remove defects.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rajesh Amrutlal Shah & Anr
- respondent
Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)
Coram
Registrar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · August
- CNR
- 271090021362023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court