The Tribunal dismissed the original recovery application for non-prosecution as the applicant bank failed to place the required RBI debt consolidation scheme on record.
Original Application No.254 of 2022 stood dismissed for non-prosecution with no order as to costs.
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 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)
Sr. No.27
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.1547 of 2022
In ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.254 of 2022
Union Bank of India
… Applicant
Versus
M/s. Shreenath Enterprises & Ors. … Defendants
Mr Udaya Kumar S. Nadar i/b M/s. Anup Khaitan & Co. – Advocates for the applicant.
None for defendants.
Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 16th November 2022.
ORDER
settle the matter under the scheme propounded by it. Mr Nadar candidly submits that the applicant has not given a copy of the scheme and requests the Tribunal to dismiss the Original Application. 2. Therefore, Interlocutory Application No.1547 of 2022 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai
Nidhi
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)
ORDER SHEET
16.11.2022
Sr. No.27
| OA No.254 of 2022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi- cation |
No. of Exh. |
Union Bank of India Vs. M/s. Shreenath Enterprises & Ors. |
| Mr Udaya Kumar S. Nadar i/b M/s. Anup Khaitan & Co. – Advocates for the applicant. None for defendants. |
||
| 1. Order in I.A. No.1547 of 2022 passed separately. 2. The applicant has failed to place on record any scheme and it appears the applicant did not want to place any scheme on record. Hence Original Application No.254 of 2022 stands dismissed for non-prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| Nidhi | Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Sathe Biscuits and Chocolates Co. Ltd. and another versus Bank of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶14
(i) The Sathe Biscuits and Chocolates Co. Ltd. and another versus Bank of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2004 Bombay 101 · Who else cites this
Sardar Associates and Ors. versus Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.Referred¶14
ii) Sardar Associates and Ors. versus Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors., MANU/SC/1351/2009
Neeraj Syal versus State Bank of IndiaReferred¶14
(iii) Neeraj Syal versus State Bank of India, AIR Online 2019 DEL 1868 · Who else cites this
Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor versus Meenal AgarwalReferred¶14
(iv) Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor versus Meenal Agarwal, AIR 2022 SCC 56 · Who else cites this
Union Bank of India
Deepak M. Thakkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
