Anoop Muralidharan v. South Indian Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellants sought to condone delay in their appeal. Upon stating their intention to settle with the bank and withdraw, the delay application was dismissed as withdrawn, and the underlying appeal was rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 01st Day of January, 2025
PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan
CHAIRPERSON
IA 698/2024 (Condone Delay)
In
AIR (SA) 1584/2024
( Arising out of IA 1854/2024 in SA 369/2024 on the file of DRT-I, Ernakulam)
Between
- Anoop Muralidharan S/o.V S Muralidharan Sourparnika (Veetikkathodiyil) Aliparamba, Malappuram, Kerala – 679 357
- Mrs. Prathyusha S
W/o. Anoop Muralidharan Souparnika (Veetikkathodiyil) Aliparamba, Malappuram, Kerala – 679 357
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Anoop Muralidharan
- appellant
Mrs. Prathyusha S
- appellant
Mrs. Indira M
- respondent
South Indian Bank Ltd
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · January
- CNR
- 331090015842024
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court