In a non-prosecution order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitisation application for lack of applicant's appearance. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed off accordingly, and the file was consigned to the record room.
Securitisation Application No.211/2023 dismissed for non-prosecution; pending interlocutory applications 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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
| 1 S |
5.09.2 r. No. |
023 46 SA No.211/2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Classifi cation |
No. of Exh. |
|
| SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.211/2023 Latabai Sarjerao Kakuste ..Applicant Versus IDBI Bank ..Respondent None for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Pathak – Advocate for the respondent-bank The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the applicant has approached the respondent-bank for settlement but no amount has been deposited. 2. The counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant was absent on 18thAugust, 2023. 3. Today also none appears for the applicant. Even after passed over, none appears for the applicants. It appears that the applicants are not interested in pursuing this matter. |
||
| 4. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER |
||
| A. The Securitisation Application No.211/20213stands dismissed for non-prosecution. B. All the pending interlocutory applications stands disposed off accordingly. C. File be consigned to the record room**.** |
||
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad |
[SBJ] (SA No.211/2023) Page 1 of 1
Latabai Sarjerao Kakuste
IDBI Bank
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
