S.A. No.4 of 2022 stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Neither the applicants nor the secured creditor was interested in proceeding further as the mortgaged property was sold, rendering the application infructuous.
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
29.05.2023 Sr. No.11
| SA No.4 of 2022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi- cation |
No. of Exh. |
Raj Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs Edelweiss Retail Finance Ltd. |
| None for the applicants. | ||
| Ms Reshma Nandilath i/b M/s. M & S Legal Ventures – Advocates for defendant. |
||
| 1. No representation was made by the applicants either personally or through the advocate and therefore, the matter is listed under caption ‘dismissal’. On the last date, the secured creditor’s counsel submitted that the mortgaged property has been sold and therefore, the |
||
| Securitisation Application has become infructuous and even they have not taken any steps in this regard. Neither the applicants nor the secured creditor is interested in prosecuting the case any further. Hence, |
||
| Securitisation Application No.4 of 2022 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
Raj Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
Edelweiss Retail Finance Ltd.
Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
