Arvind Kumar v. Central Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
Single-paragraph order dismissing a transfer petition as infructuous because the Presiding Officer of the specified DRT was already appointed.
What did the court decide?
Transfer application dismissed as infructuous.
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. 22/2022 Date: 15.03.2022
Arvind Kumar Vs. Central Bank of India
Present: Shri Azad Khan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the appellant,
Shri S. K. Srivastava, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Presiding Officer, DRT, Patna has been appointed, therefore, this transfer petition has become infructuous.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Bank, the transfer application is dismissed as infructuous.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Arvind Kumar
- respondent
Central Bank of India
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · March
- CNR
- 091090000222022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court