The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application for want of prosecution as the applicant failed to appear or make any representation on the scheduled date.
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
17.05.2024
Sr. No.28
| SA No.275 of 2023 | ||
|---|---|---|
| classifi- cation |
No. of Exh. |
Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs. Union Bank of India |
| None for the parties. | ||
| 1. Order-sheet maintained by the learned Registrar shows that since 4thSeptember 2023, the applicant and the advocate on record stopped attending the case 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.275 of 2023 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. 2. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Pratap Singh
Union Bank of India
Hon'ble Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
