Order on account of non-appearance of the applicant where the matter is noted as settled by the respondent bank and consequently dismissed for want of prosecution.
S.A. No.100 of 2022 dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
17.10.2022 Roznama-MDRT-III Next date
S.A. No.100 of 2022
Applicant absent.
Advocate Mr. Naresh H. Mangnani for
Respondent Bank.
Case was called out but there is no,
response from Applicant. According 14%,„,,,,,
Counsel for Respondent Bank the matter
has been settled and that mar lase the ''' ,
*, t.,
reason as to why Applicant' :-, Is -A96
appearing. So, this S.A. I\fo,1.06'4 ' 20/2 s Closed
dismissed for want of, prOsec,:utfon ' ile .
be consigned to the Reeoid Roofrt.."
'':'---,,,,%::, :"''''--::,.•-.. , - .1;
- lk.
1/ 1 4 3 . 0 .
DRT-III
Applicant
Respondent Bank
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
