The application stood dismissed for want of prosecution as the applicant expressed no desire to pursue the matter subject to account regularisation, which the respondent bank stated was already completed.
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.
| 26.09.2025 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.116 of 2024 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Tejas Girap (through VC) i/b Mr Vivek Phadke, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr Alok Mishra and Ms Julee Modak, Advocates for the Respondent. |
|||
| rst – 15 | Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant does not wish to pursue with the matter subject to regularisation of the account. Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank submits that account has already been regularised. The statement is taken on record and will act as an order of this Tribunal. In view of the above submissions, S.A. No.116 of 2024 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
