The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed Securitisation Application No.190 of 2022 for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to take steps after filing for substituted service and made no representation.
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
02.02.2024
Sr. No.49
| SA No.190 of 2022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi- cation |
No. of Exh. |
Mrs Reshma Vijay Sahabajkar Vs. Aspire Home Finance Corporation Ltd. |
| None for the applicant. Mr Padmakar Garad i/b M/s. SG Legal – Advocates for defendant. Ms Madhu Jha – Intervenor in person. |
||
| 1. Order-sheet maintained by the learned Registrar shows that the applicant has failed to take steps despite filing the application for substituted service. |
||
| 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.190 of 2022 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. 2. All pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, |
||
| DRT-2, Mumbai |
Nidhi
Mrs Reshma Vijay Sahabajkar
Aspire Home Finance Corporation Ltd.
Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
