M/S Al Umar Export v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The application was declared not required to be registered and withdrawn upon counsel for the applicant submitting that the charge of the DRT Lucknow has been entrusted to another DRT.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - ALLAHABAD
Diary No. 1013/2026
(Arising out of SA 1041 of 2025 LUCKNOW DRT)
Date:22/04/2026
M/S Al Umar Export ….. Appellant
--Vs—
Union Bank of India ……... Respondents
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Shri Shadab Alam is present.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Shri Saurabh Pandey holding brief of Shri S.C. Pandey is present and files reply.
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that since the charge of DRT Lucknow has been entrusted to another DRT therefore the present application has become infructuous accordingly the Application is not pressed and is withdrawn.
In view of the above application is not required to be registered.
Registrar
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/S Al Umar Export
- respondent
Union Bank of India
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 091090010132026
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court