In this miscellaneous application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the matter for want of prosecution as the applicant failed to file any representation on the listed date.
The miscellaneous application is dismissed for want of 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)
ORDER SHEET
22.12.2023 Sr. No.18
| MA No.14 of 2023 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi -cation |
No. of Exh. |
Mrs. Sultana Shaikh Abdul Rashid Vs. Canara Bank |
| None for the parties. | ||
| 1. On 1stDecember 2023, no representation was made by the applicant and therefore, the matter is listed under caption ‘dismissal’. Even today, no representation is made by the applicant either personally or through the advocate. It appears that the applicant is not interested |
||
| in prosecuting the case any further. Hence, |
||
| Miscellaneous Application No.14 of 2023 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
Mrs. Sultana Shaikh Abdul Rashid
Canara Bank
Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
