Rajaram Jotiba Belekar v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Special Appeal was dismissed due to the absence of representation by the Applicant, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case further.
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.
| 28.11.2025 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.186 of 2023 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| None for the parties. | |||
| Order-sheet maintained by the learned Registrar dated 08.10.2025 shows that since 03.04.2024, no |
|||
| representation was made by the | |||
| Applicant. Even today, no representation is made by the Applicant |
|||
| nrb - 36 | either personally or through the Advocate or through VC. Prima facie, it appears that the Applicant is not interested in pursuing this case any further. So, S.A. No.186 of 2023 stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
Applicant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court