A debt recovery appeal was dismissed as inadmissible. The court refused to adjourn further on the grounds that the suit was settled between parties and the appellant showed no interest in prosecuting the matter, rendering the appeal infructuous.
The appeal RA(SA) 42/2023 is dismissed; other applications stand closed as infructuous.
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.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 14th day of June, 2024
PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CHAIRPERSON
RA (SA) 42/2023
(SA 104/2021 on the file of DRT-II, Ernakulam)
Between
…Appellants
And
…Respondents
Counsel for Appellants : M/s R. Chandramohan & Co. Counsel for R1 : None Counsel for R2 : Shri M/s M. Suresh
ORDER
No representation for R2.
Counsel for Appellant Institution sought further time
stating that matter is settled between parties.
This matter is posted to this date under the caption of ‘dismissal’, as Appellant was absent on 13.3.2024. In spite of accommodating the Appellant no interest is evinced in prosecuting the case. When matter is settled between parties there is no point in adjourning the case. Therefore, request for further time is refused.
In view of the same, Appeal RA(SA) 42/2023 is dismissed, and other Applications, if any stand closed as infructuous .
[Dictated to P. Athistamani, PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, 14th of June, 2024]
[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON
Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.
Shina P.S.
P.M. Anas
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
