AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
No representation for the Applicant i.e. M/s. Suresh Trading Company in M.A. No. 91/2017 despite repeated calls.
At very inception, it would be appropriate to mention that this M.A. No. 91/2017 is moved in the Appeal No. 145/2014 with prayer, inter-alia, for directions to the Registrar DRAT to return the original title deeds of the mortgaged property to the Applicant i.e. M/s. Suresh Trading Company, and ; to refund Rs. 42 Lakhs deposited by Applicant i.e. M/s. Suresh Trading Company deposited in the DRAT in pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2015, and ; to direct the Registrar DRAT to refund the amount of fixed deposit of Rs. 42 Lakhs with interest.
It would be pertinent to mention that this application had been decided vide order dated 30.03.2017 by DRAT however, the same was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court vide its’ judgment dated 03.04.2025 in Writ Petition No. 3707/2017. The Hon’ble High Court in this judgment had further directed this Appellate Tribunal that, as the proceedings are complete, to decide the proceedings within period of three months. However, this Appellate Tribunal only assumed charge in mid of February, 2026 as it was previously lying vacant.
On 17.04.2026, Advocate Mr. Ashish K. sought the adjournment on behalf of counsel for the Applicant and the case was listed for hearing on 18.05.2026.
On 18.05.2026, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Atul Pande again sought the adjournment and case was listed for hearing on 30.06.2026, but the same was further adjusted for convenience of Learned Counsel for the Applicant, to 10.06.2026.
On 10.06.2026 the chairperson of DRAT was on leave therefore the case was listed for hearing today however, as stated above no one is present for the Applicant despite repeated calls. Accordingly, the M.A. is dismissed for default for want of prosecution.