The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application for want of prosecution as the applicant failed to appear or make representation after a prolonged absence from hearings.
Application 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
29.04.2024 Sr. No.9
| SA No.166 of 2023 |
||
|---|---|---|
| classifi -cation |
No. of Exh. |
Mr. Mohammed Usman Shaikh Vs. Piramal Capital Finances Ltd. |
| None for the parties. | ||
| 1. Order-sheet maintained by the learned Registrar shows that the applicant stopped attending the case since 18th October 2023 and 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.166 of 2023 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
Mr. Mohammed Usman Shaikh
Piramal Capital Finances Ltd.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
