Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi dismissed a transfer application for non-prosecution. The applicant bank did not appear, and despite repeated attempts to contact them, noted that it was not interested 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
TAlL979l2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SUNAM NATH
2t.08.2025
Item no. 39
Present: None for applicant bank. Ms. Ritu, proxy counsel for defendant no.3.
Matter is taken through Video Conferencingl hybrid Mode
The proxy counsel for defendant no.3 has appeared today before this Tribuna! and submitted that the matter has been settled.
Despite repeated calls, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant bank. It appears that the applicant bank is not interestedin pursuing the case. Hence, the present TA is dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
File be consigned to records.
<a
(susHIL KUMnx RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, DCIhi
A
State Bank of India
Sunam Nath
SUSHiL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
