The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh allowed a motion application to restore Special Appeal No.150/2022, which was previously dismissed in default due to a mistake in noting the hearing date by the applicant's counsel. The respondent bank had no objection.
MA allowed; SA No.150/2022 restored to its original number and disposed off;
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 RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
MA/29/2023 IN SA No.150/2022 Parshant Gupta vs. SBI
24.03.2023 Item No.66
Present: Ms.Nivedika Malik, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh.Vivek Verma, Counsel for respondent bank.
Heard on MA No.29/2023 for restoration of SA No.150/2022, which was dismissed in default on 30.01.2023 and the present MA was filed on 23.02.2023. It is alleged in the MA that counsel for the applicant wrongly noted down the wrong date so she could not appear on that day.
Mr.Vivek Verma, counsel for respondent bank has made a statement at the bar he has no objection in case the MA is allowed. I order accordingly. MA is hereby allowed and disposed of .
SA No.150/2022 is ordered to be restored to its original number.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
Manoj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Special Appeal No.150/2022 should be restored from dismissal in default due to a clerical error regarding the date of hearing.
Parshant Gupta
SBI
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
