The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for concession of delay in removing an office objection, accepting that the previous advocate was unavailable and is no longer on the bank's panel.
Miscellaneous Application No.14 of 2022 is allowed 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) ORDER SHEET
13.10.2023 Sr. No.143
| MA No.14 of 2022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi -cation |
No. of Exh. |
Bank of India Vs. M/s. Onega Consort Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. |
| Mr O.A. Das – Advocate for the applicant. None for defendants. |
||
| 1. The applicant has preferred the Chamber Appeal to condone the delay in removal of the office objection. The applicant states that the previous advocate on record did not took prompt steps to comply with the objections raised by the learned Registrar. Mr Das, representing the applicant, submits that the previous advocate on record is now not on the panel of the applicant bank. He also not available in the Bombay City. Mr Das submits that within fifteen days the objections shall be removed. The statement made by Mr Das is accepted. Miscellaneous Application No.14 of 2022 is allowed with no order as to costs. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
Bank of India
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
