Bhuleram Chaudhary v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, the court noted missing court fees, pending waiver applications, and absence of certain respondents. It allowed the appearing respondent four weeks to file a reply and listed the case for 04.05.2022.
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. 203/2019 Date: 03.03.2022
Bhuleram Chaudhary Vs. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank & Ors.
Present: None for the appellant, Shri Anirudh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent,
Perusal of the order dated 11.08.2021 shows that none was present on behalf of the parties. The office report dated 02.03.2022 reveals that the deficit court fee has not been deposited. The waiver and delay condonation appellations are also pending inspite of the fact that the service is complete, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4.
Learned counsel for the appearing respondent seeks four weeks’ time to file reply. Let the same be filed during the time as prayed for. After filing the reply, the appellant may file rejoinder by the next date.
List this case on 04.05.2022 for reply.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be listed for reply after conditional allowance of time despite procedural defects.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Bhuleram Chaudhary
- respondent
Uttarakhand Gramin Bank
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court