Indu Kumari Pandey v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The presiding officer dismissed the applicant's application for non-prosecution due to the applicant's prolonged absence since July 2025.
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, PATNA | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date of order or proceeding |
Order with the Signature of the Court |
Office action taken with date |
| SA 35of2025 | ||
| 25.11.2025 | (Kaushalendra Yadav) Presiding Officer None is present for the applicant. Ld. counsel for the respondent is present. Ithas been submitted that none is appearing for the applicant since July in this case. From the perusal of record, it appears that on 30.07.2025, as none was present for the applicant, however in the interest of justice, .the time for argument was granted. Today also nobody is present for the applicant. In such circumstances, it appears that the applicanthaslost interest in this case. Accordingly, it is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website. Patna |
Applicant
Respondent
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court