Bank of Baroda v. Dileep Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal listed the matter for hearing via video conferencing and issued procedural directives regarding the filing of an affidavit for service and the submission of a rejoinder by the appellant.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No.135/2020 Arising out of O.A. No. 88/2020 (DRT, Jaipur)
Bank of Baroda Vs Dileep Kumar
15.07.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice BrijeshSethi
Present: Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Sarbjit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for Respondent no. 2 and 3.
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Reply has already been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 2 and 3.
Affidavit qua service of respondent no. 1 has not been filed. Let the same
be filed on or before the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, respondent no. 1 be again served through all permissible modes.
Advocate Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal is also present and submits that she is not representing respondent no. 2&3 in the present case. She is, therefore, discharged.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Bank of Baroda
- respondent
Dileep Kumar (Respondent no. 1)
- respondent
Respondent no. 2
- respondent
Respondent no. 3
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
10 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court