The court declined registration of the bank’s regular appeal because it had not removed the defects raised by the registry despite sufficient time and opportunity. The appellant was therefore presumed not interested in pursuing the matter.
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.
Debts Recove A ellate Tribunal Mumbai
RegularAppeal D. No. 1858/2025
The Pandharpur Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Anr.
.. . .... Appellant
-Vs-
Pramod Manikarao Joshi & Ors. Respondents
Regular Appeal D. No. 1858/2025is listed on today's board (25.09.2026) before the Ld. Registrar at 1l .30 AM for compliance/removal of defects. The said Board is displayed in Public Notice on the website of DRT/DRAI and also on the Notice Board of DRAT Mumbai.
Advocate Shubham appeared lbr the Appellant when matter is called out.
This Regular Appeal D. No. 1858/2025was filed on 18.11.2025 and certain objections were raised by the Registry for compliance/removal of del-ects. However, despite suffrcient opportunity, appellant failed to comply with.iremove the defects till date.
Therefore, it is presumed that, the appellant is not interested inpursuing with the matter.
ln view of the above & under the provisions ofSub Rule(4) of Rule 6 of DRAI (Procedure) Rules, 1994 the Regular Appeat D. No. 1858/2025is hereby declined for Registration.
Date: 25.09.2026
Registrar DRAT Mumbai
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a regular appeal should be declined for registration where the appellant failed to remove registry objections despite a sufficient opportunity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Pandharpur Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.
Anr.
Pramod Manikarao Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
