In default proceeding, application was dismissed by Delhi DRT-II for non-prosecution as applicant failed to appear despite default notice post-video conferencing setup. Grant order of dismissal in default.
Application dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
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 Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi
sA/88/2O2s
SUDHESH Vs SHUBHAM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
30.07.2026
Item no. 48
Present: None for applicant.
Mr. Baljeet Singh, proxy counsel for respondent FI.
Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.
The Ld. Counsel for respondent FI has appeared today before this Tribunal.
Despite issuance of default notice, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. It appears that the applicants are not interested in pursuing the case. Hence, the present SA is dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
File be consigned to records.
frl , (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICE& DRT-II, Delhi
A
SUDHESH
SHUBHAM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
