Nulla representation was made by the applicant within the stipulated timeframe. The DRT consequently dismissed Securitisation Application No.100 of 2022 for want of prosecution.
Securitisation Application No.100 of 2022 dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.
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
03.01.2024
Sr. No.32
| SA No.100 of 2022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi- cation |
No. of Exh. |
Reena Virendra Mehta Vs. Bank of Baroda |
| None for the applicant. Mr Nilesh Bamne – Advocate for defendant. |
||
| 1. On 20thDecember 2023, no representation was made by the applicant therefore, the matter is listed under caption ‘dismissal’. Even today, no representation is made by the applicant either personally or through the advocate. It appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the case any further. Hence, Securitisation Application No.100 of 2022 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
Reena Virendra Mehta
Bank of Baroda
Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
