Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Mr Navinchandra Jivanlal Shah vs BANK OF BARODA on 30 May 2024
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD**
**(Laxman Madnani, Presiding Officer)**
M.A.No. 61 of 2012
Date of Filing : 15.10.2012
Date of Decision : 30.05.2024
**NAVINCHANDRA JIVANLAL SHAH & ANR.** .....APPLICANTS
**VERSUS**
**BANK OF BARODA** .....RESPONDENT
**Appearance:**
None appeared for the Applicant
Mr.C.Z.Sankhla, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
1. 1. Today, this matter has come up for hearing.
2. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has filed a purshis at Ex.R/6, submitting *inter alia* that the loan account has been settled between the parties. Copy of closure statement has been annexed along with the purshis so filed at Ex.R/6. In view of the said fact, the present Misc. Application has become infructuous and hence, appropriate order may be passed to dispose of the present Misc. Application.
3. 3. Matter called several times, none present for the Applicants.
4. 4. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of **Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. V/s. Machado Brothers & Others, 110(2004) DLT 649 (SC)** wherein it has been held as under:
*"For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that continuation of a suit which has become infructuous by disappearance of the cause of action would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and interest of justice requires such suit should be disposed of as having become infructuous."*
1
2M.A.No. 61 of 2012
1. 5. Considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and taking into account the purshis filed by the Respondent at Ex.R/6, as such no cause of action survives to continue the proceedings of the present M.A, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Tribunal is inclined to accept the submission of the Respondent to dispose of the present M.A.
2. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and without commenting on the merits of the case, present M.A. No.61/2012 stands disposed of, with no order as to cost.
3. 7. File be consigned to records.
11/3/12 (LAXMAN MADNANI) Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Ahmedabad