The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed Miscellaneous Application No.34 of 2022 for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to appear or make representation despite repeated listings, indicating lack of interest in the matter.
Miscellaneous Application No.34 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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)
ORDER SHEET
20.01.2023
Sr. No.5
| MA No.34 of 2022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi- cation |
No. of Exh. |
Mr. Sukumar Nandlal Shah Vs. Indian Overseas Bank |
| None for the parties. | ||
| 1. On 25thAugust 2022, no representation was made by the applicant either personally or through the advocate and therefore, the matter is listed under caption ‘dismissal’. On the adjourned date, the matter was not taken up for the reasons recorded therein. 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.34 of 2022 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
Mr. Sukumar Nandlal Shah
Indian Overseas Bank
Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
