Rahim Panjwani v. Hdfc Bank Limited and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
Registrar declined the miscellaneous appeal for registration as the appellant failed to remove defects in appearance before the Registry, presuming lack of interest to proceed, under Rule 6(a) of DRAT Rules, 1994.
What did the court decide?
The Misc. Appeal D. No. 98412025 is declined for registration.
What the court decided
DqbtP FqqoveryAppqllateTribunal'Mumbai
Misc. APPealD' No' 98412025
Rahim Panjwani
... ....APPellant
-Vs-
HDFC BankLtd' & Ors.
ResPondents
Misc. AppealD. No. g84t2o25islisted on today's board (12'11'2025)before the Ld.Registraral 1L 30 AM for compliance/removalof defects' Thesaid Board isdisplayed in Public Notice on the website of DRT/DRAT and alsoon the NoticeBoard of DRAT Mumbai'
None appearedfor the Appellantwhen matter is called out'
ThisMisc.AppealD.No.gS4t2o2swasfiledon0l.oT.2o2Sandcertain objectionswereraised by the Registryfor compliance/removalof defects' However,despite sufficient opportunity, appellant failed to comply withiremove the defectstill date.
Therefore,it is presumed that,the appellant is not interested in pursuing with the matter.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rahim Panjwani
- respondent
HDFC Bank Ltd & Ors.
Coram
Registrar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · November
- CNR
- 271090009842025
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court