In default proceedings before the Delhi DRT-II, the applicant failed to appear despite notice. The proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution without substantive discussion or legal application.
Application dismissed for non-prosecution due to applicant's absence.
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 Recovela Tribunal-Il,Delhi
sA/120 12022 MS TANMAY SURGICALVS YES BANK
29.tt.2023
Item no.44
Present: None for aPPlicant
Sh. Shubham, Counselfor respondent bank
Matter is taken throughVideo Conferencing.
None appeared on thelast date of hearing on behalf of the applicant. Despiteissuance of default notice none appears today. It appears thatthe applicants are not interestedin pursuing the case. Hence, thepresent SA is dismissed in default for non-Prosecution.
File be consigned torecords.
d,/
(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi
c
MS TANMAY SURGICAL
YES BANK
SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
