An application before DRT-II, Delhi was dismissed in default as neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared despite issuance of a default notice, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the case.
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.
Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi
sA/16612024
KRISHAN KANT AND ORS Vs SAVE FINANCIAL SERVICES PvT LTD
L7.0L.2025
Item no.27
Present None for applicants. Shri Amit Kumar Sinha, counsel for respondent FI.
Matter is taken through Video Conferen cingl Hybrid Mode.
The Ld. Counsel for respondent FI has appeared today before this Tribunal.
Despite issuance of default notice, no one appeared on behalf of the applicants. It appears that the applicants are not interested in pursuing the case. Hence, the present SA is dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
File be consigned to records.
.{,
(susHrl KUM(R RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
P
KRISHAN KANT AND ORS
SAVE FINANCIAL SERVICES PvT LTD
SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
