Application dismissed for want of prosecution as applicant refused to file proof of service despite directions and failed to appear on record date.
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
01.02.2024 Sr. No.52
| SA No.252 of 2022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi -cation |
No. of Exh. |
Metcraft Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. |
| None for the parties. | ||
| 1. Order-sheet dated 19thOctober 2023 reveals that the applicant refused to file proof of service upon other parties despite directions and sufficient opportunity |
||
| granted to the applicant by the learned Registrar. | ||
| Even today, no representation is made by the applicant either personally or through the advocate. |
||
| It appears the applicant is not interested in |
||
| prosecuting the case any further. Hence, |
||
| Securitisation Application No.252 of 2022 stands | ||
| dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| 2. All pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of. | ||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Nidhi
Metcraft Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Karnataka Bank Ltd.
UNKNOWN
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
