Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application in default for non-prosecution as the applicant failed to file an application for withdrawal despite a settlement. Only the respondent's counsel and the applicant appeared in absentia.
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-Il, Dethi
sAl376l2022
MS NAMDHARI TIMBER Vs INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
17.10.2023
Item no. 48
Present: None for applicant,
Ms. Sandhya Chawla, counsel for respondent bank.
Matter is taken through Video Conferencing.
The ld. counsel for respondent bank submits that the matter has been settled.
on perusal of the last order sheet, the applicant mentioned that the matter has been settled and seeks time to file application for withdrawal. No application filed tirl date and today, none appeared on behalf of the applicant. It appears that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the case. l-lence, the present sA is dismissed, in default for non-prosecution..'
File be consigned to records.
-_&"( (SUSHIL KUMA( RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, : PRT-II, Delhi
MS NAMDHARI TIMBER
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
Sushil Kumar Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
