AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 233 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of respondents. The factual situation in this petition is more or less similar to that in B P No. 221 of 2020. Mr. Sachin Narayan was impleaded as respondent no. 3 in this matter also. His Writ Petition against that order is pending before the Karnataka High Court and scheduled to be listed on 5.10.2021. It would be proper to hear this matter also after the order of Karnataka High Court is made available and this Tribunal is informed whether any further stay is operating in favour of Mr. Sachin Narayan or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition to the amount for which Execution Application No. 8 of 2020 involving BP No. 256 of 2020 has been preferred, further claim of the petitioner may now be adjudicated ex-parte because the respondents have chosen not to appear after this Tribunal permitted the counsels for the respondents to seek discharge on 30.7.2021.
Since the respondents have chosen not to appear in spite of notice and knowledge even after discharge of their counsel was communicated, the prayer for ex-parte hearing has to the accepted. The remaining claim in B P No. 256 of 2020 shall also be considered on its own merits on the next date when the matters shall be heard ex-parte.
Post the matter under the same head on 22.11.2021.