The applicant failed to appear. Counsel for the respondent noted non-compliance with a prior order. The DRT dismissed the securitisation application for non-prosecution and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.
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
| 12 Sr |
.09.20 . No.2 |
23 2 SA No.73/2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Classifica tion |
No. of Exh. |
|
| SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.73/2023 | ||
| Sitaram Kashinath Lingayat ..Applicant Versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd. ..Respondent None for the applicant. Mr. Rahul Bhutekar - Advocate for the respondent-bank. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. The learned counsel for the respondent-FI submits that as per order dated 10.03.2023 the applicants are directed to clear the entire liability up to 30.04.2023. The applicant has deposited only an amount of Rs. 50,000/- but has not complied with the order in toto. |
||
| 2. Today, none for applicant even after pass over none appeared for the applicant. It appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 3. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER |
||
| A. The Securitisation Application No.73/2023 stands dismissed for non-prosecution. B. Accordingly, all Interlocutory Applications pending if any stands disposed off. C. Consign the file to the Record Room. |
||
| (Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad |
[APK]
Sitaram Kashinath Lingayat
Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
