Canara Bank v. Meena Oberoi and 3 Ors.
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. 170/2020 Date: 23.09.2022
Canara Bank Vs. Meena Oberoi & Ors.
Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the appellant, Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent no. 3,
The office report dated 22.09.2022 shows that proof of publication with regard to the service of notice upon the respondents no. 1, 2 & 4 has not been filed. The delay condonation application is pending consideration.
Shri O. P. Tripathi, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and seeks time to file his vakalatnama and reply. Let the same be filed by the next date.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be permitted to take fresh steps within 10 days for service of notice upon the remaining respondents through paper publication in the newspapers having wide circulation in the area.
Ordered accordingly. Affidavit of service along with proof of publication be filed by the next date.
List this case on 19.12.2022 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Canara Bank
- respondent
Meena Oberoi
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