A single-paragraph interim order where the Tribunal disposed of an injunction application as infructuous due to a lack of bids received by the Respondent Bank following an auction.
Injunction application disposed of as infructuous.
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.
| 04.02.2026 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.45 of 2026 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| rst -73 | Mr Mohammad Taha Shaikh Advocate for Applicant. Mr Nainesh Amin and Ms Preeti Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No.1. None for other Respondents. This matter is taken up by way of praecipe filed by the Applicant. Heard Ld. Advocate for the parties in I.A. No.253 of 2026. During the hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank states that no bid has been received by the Respondent Bank in response to the auction scheduled on 28.01.2026, so, nothing survives in I.A. No.253 of 2026 for Stay, filed by the Applicant. The statement made by Ld. Advocate for the Respondent is accepted and shall act as an order of this Tribunal. In view of the statement made by Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, I.A. No.253 of 2026 stands disposed of being infructuous. Now, the matter be put up before the Ld. Registrar on 14.05.2026 for filing reply to S.A. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
14.05.2026 Before Registrar |
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
