TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Debt Recovery Tribunal Order Upheld: No Contractual Privity Means No Liability for Third-Party Respondent</h1> <h3>M/s SRS Investment Company And Another Versus Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal And Others</h3> HC dismissed writ petition challenging DRAT's order, finding respondent no. 3 was correctly excluded from debt recovery proceedings due to lack of ... - The Allahabad High Court, through Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J., dismissed the writ petition challenging the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's (DRAT) order which held that respondent no. 3 was 'neither necessary nor proper party' to the Bank's recovery suit, as he had 'no privity of contract' and was not liable under the debt recovery proceedings. The petitioners' review application was rejected on the ground that it did not raise any permissible grounds for review, and could not be used to re-argue the merits. The Court distinguished the Apex Court judgment in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, finding it inapplicable since respondent no. 3 had not received any financial facility nor defaulted. The Court concluded respondent no. 3 was rightly excluded and the petition was 'thoroughly misconceived.'
TaxTMI 
