The applicant failed to appear in the second hearing of the application. Due to non-appearance, the court dismissed the application in default.
Application filed by the applicant was dismissed in default.
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-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/43/2025 PUSHPA BAKERY Vs HIMACHAL PRADESH GRAMIN BANK
06.03.2025 Item No.33
Present: None for the Applicant. Mr. Lovish, Counsel for respondent bank.
This is second pass over but nobody is appearing on behalf of the applicant. It is already 01:00 p.m. It appears that applicant is not interested in pursuing this matter. Therefore, application filed by the applicant is dismissed in default .
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
PANKAJ
Pushpa Bakery
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
