Master Anurag Kumar and 4 Ors. v. Canara Bank And 8 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
An application was disposed of directing that the name of the second auction purchaser, Sunena Devi, be added to the order dated 20.04.2022 and arrayed as respondent no. 6, correcting a transcription error.
What did the court decide?
Name of Sunena Devi added to the order dated 20.04.2022 and arrayed as respondent no. 6.
What the court decided
I.A. No. 59/2022, I.A. No. 54/2022 & I.A. No. 183/2021 In Appeal Dy. No. 51/2021
Date: 26.04.2022
Master Anurag Kumar and Ors. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.
Present: Shri Shresth Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashok Pandey, counsel for the applicants, Shri S. K. Srivastava, counsel for the respondent-Bank, None for the respondent no. 3, Shri M. K. Srivastava, counsel for the respondent no. 4-Auction Purchaser,
Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the correction application.
It is contended that due to inadvertent mistake, the name of the second auction purchaser “Sunena Devi” could not be transcribed along with Shri Sharma Bhagat in the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by this Tribunal. Therefore, the name of Sunena Devi be added after the word of Shri Sharma Bhagat and after word respondent No. 5, respondent no. 6.
In view of the above, the name of “Sunena Devi” be read along with the name of “Shri Sharma Bhagat” and also be arrayed as “respondent no. 6” in the present case.
This order shall be read conjointly with the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, the I.A. No. 59/2022 stands disposed off.
List this case on the date already fixed i.e. 27.07.2022.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Master Anurag Kumar and Ors.
- respondent
Canara Bank & Ors.
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 091090000512021
- Bench
- Rajesh Dayal Khare
All orders in this case
12 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court