Arun Pratap Singh v. Indian Bank and 7 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
A set order on an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act filed by Arun Pratap Singh against an order of the DRT, Lucknow. The court listed the case for admission on a fixed date, acknowledging that proof of service was pending until filed on a later date.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appeal Dy. No. 852/2022
(Arun Pratap Singh Vs. Indian Bank)
Date: 20.10.2022
Shri K. Kartikeya, Ld. Counsel for the appellant is present. Proper Court has been paid.
Ld. Counsel states that he has served copy of appeal to the Caveator and undertakes that he will file proof of service before next date.
The instant Appeal has been filed by under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against final order dated 02.06.2022 of DRT, Lucknow in S.A. No. 915/2019. Urgency Application (I.A. No. 504/2022) and Delay Condonation Application (I.A. No. 505/2022) have been filed along with the appeal.
List this case before Hon’ble Chairperson on 03.11.2022 for admission.
Registrar
Ld. Counsel has filed today i.e. on 28.10.2022 proof of service to the Caveator. List on the date fixed before Hon’ble Chairperson.
Registrar
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
whether to admit an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act filed with proof of service
whether to conditionally admit an appeal filed without proof of service pending filing of proof
whether to note an urgency application and delay condonation application filed along with the appeal
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Arun Pratap Singh
- respondent
Indian Bank
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · October
- CNR
- 091090008522022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court