In this review application, the applicant sought to correct an order dated 29.04.2023, claiming lack of hearing. The Presiding Officer dismissed the application, observing no error under Rule 5(A) warranting correction.
null
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 43
Case No. RA/9/2023 IN OA/1425/2019
M/S PREM CHAND SANDEEP KUMAR Vs HDFC BANK Date: 17.01.2025.
Present:
None for the Applicant
Ms. Praneeta Agarwal, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
This review application is for reviewing the order dated 29.04.2023 and reply has been filed by the respondent bank. The main grievance is that his applications were not heard, however, in the order it is observed that those applications, therefore, this does not call for the order which is instinct terms has only based for correction of the error and as per Rule 5(A), nothing is shown.
On the ground for reviewing, this review application stands dismissed.
Parties are at liberty to avail its legal remedy before the appropriate forum and the period spend therein, will not be counted in the limitation.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
1 issue framed by the court
whether the review application admits correction of errors on the basis that applications were unheard
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S PREM CHAND SANDEEP KUMAR
HDFC BANK
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
