Respondent Bank withdrew a demand notice. The Tribunal disposed of the Application Admitted (S.A. No. 289 of 2023) as infructuous.
Application disposed of as infructuous with liberty to take fresh action.
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.
| 22.04.2026 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.289 of 2023 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Charles De Souza, Ms Kalyani Wagle and Mr Rupak Sawangikar i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate for the Applicant. Mr Nainesh Amin, Advocate for Respondent. |
|||
| During the hearing, Ld. Advocate for Applicant submits that the Applicant is not willing to deposit any amount in the matter. Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank also submits that Bank is withdrawing the demand notice dated 05.04.2021 which is question in this matter. So, nothing remains in the S.A. No.289 of 2023 which has become infructuous and can be disposed with liberty to take fresh action. The statement of Ld. Advocate for Respondent is taken on record and will act as an order of this Tribunal. In the light of submissions made above, S.A. No.289 of 2023 stands disposed of as infructuous. |
Page 1 of 2
| Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of. |
||
|---|---|---|
| File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. |
||
| Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed | |
| rst - 03 |
Page 2 of 2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicant
Respondent Bank
P.O.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
