Aarti Gunjikar v. Idbi Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
In Regular Appeal No. 75/2025, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (sitting at Chennai) listed the matter for hearing. The Court Officer reported that notices to Respondents 3 and 4 were served via courier and they were absent; notice to Respondent 2 was to be served later. The appeal was postponed and the appellant was directed to serve proof of notice on Respondent 2 by 06.11.2025.
What the court decided
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)
Regular Appeal No. 75/2025
Dated: 13.10.2025
and R-5 are present. When the matter is taken up, Learned Counsel for R-1
delivery". Notice to R-2, it seems, is not delivered. Endorsement, according to the Court Officer, reads that "expected
The Court Officer also informed that Notice to R-3 (a), R- 3 (b), and R-4 had been delivered through Courier.
None appeared for R-3 (a), R-3 (b), and R-4. Therefore, they are called absent and set ex parte.
R-2 by post by the next hearing. Petitioner/Appellant is directed to serve notice of service to
Post the matter 06.11.2025 for fling proof of service of R-2 and for further proceedings.
Learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 and 5 are directed to file their reply to the Appeal by then.
CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether notice served on the respondent via post by the next hearing.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Petitioner/Appellant
- respondent
Respondent No. 1
- respondent
Respondent No. 2
- respondent
Respondent No. 3 (a)
- respondent
Respondent No. 3 (b)
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Drat Mumbai
- Order 2 · Drat Mumbai
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court