Dismissed
Soniya v. Uco Bank
DRTSA/262/2025
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Special Appeal as infructuous because the respondent bank had settled the account and the main borrower deposited the entire due amount, thereby extinguishing the cause of action.
What did the court decide?
The Special Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. The record is consigned to the record room.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
¶2
| Dateoforderor proceeding |
Order with signature of court | Officeaction takenwith date |
|---|---|---|
| SANo.262/2025 07.01.2026 SINo.22 |
None presentfortheapplicant. Sh. N.K.TripathiLd counsel forthe respondentbank ispresent. Ld counsel for therespondentbank submitted that husband ofapplicantwas main borrower of the loan account andhe has deposited the entire due amountand account has beensettled. Since, the account has beensettled and entire amount has been depositedby themain borrowerand no cause ofaction survivesinthis S.A.,thereforethepresent SA become infructuous. Accordingly,the S.A. is dismissed as infructuous. Record beconsignedto recordroom. Pending I.A.ifany,alsodisposedoff. Order beuploadedon theTribunal’s website. (Dictated) |
|
| (PravasKumalngh) PresidingOfficer (Manoj) |
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether the Special Appeal is infructuous since the loan account has been settled and the entire due amount has been deposited by the main borrower.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Debt Recovery Tribunal Lucknow
- respondent
The Bank
Coram
AI extract
Pravas Kumar Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court