Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M Power Aquatech pvt Ltd vs DENA BANK on 11 May 2023
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD
(Laxman Madnani, Presiding Officer)**
M.A.No. 80 of 2018
Date of Filing : 07.12.2018
Date of Decision : 11.05.2023
M/S.M.POWER AQUATECH PVT. LTD., & ORS.
.....APPLICANTS
VERSUS
BANK OF BARODA (ERSTWHILE DENA BANK)
.....RESPONDENT
Appearance:
Mr.K.R.Modh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank None present for the Applicants.
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 on purshis Ex.R/08 filed today by the Respondent Bank.
2. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank has filed purshis Ex.R/08, submitting *inter alia* that during the pendency of the present Misc. Application, the subject matter has been settled between the Applicants and the Respondent Bank. As such, 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. 5. Considering the submissions made by the Respondent Bank that the settlement has been arrived at between the Applicants and the Respondent Bank, no cause of action survives to continue with the proceedings of the present M.A. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to accept the submission of the Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank to dispose of the present M.A. having become infructuous.
2M.A.No. 80 of 2018
1. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and without commenting on the merits of the case, present M.A. No.80 of 2018 stands disposed of as having become infructuous, with no order as to cost.
2. 7. File be consigned to records.
**(LAXMAN MADNANI)** **Presiding Officer,** **DRT-II, Ahmedabad**
/smita/