Appellant challenged a debatable order. Court granted time for respondent to file a reply and fixed the next hearing date with a reservation on machine possession transfer.
Reply filed within two weeks; rejoinder within one week; possession of auctioned machine not to be handed over till next date.
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. 318/2022 Arising out of S.A. No.179/2022(DRT-III, Delhi)
Sh. Hari Kishan Vs Bank of Baroda & Anr.
22.12.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari along with Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Ld. counsel for appellant
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Ld. counsel for respondent bank
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent bank. He seeks time to file reply. Let reply be filed within two weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
Learned counsel for respondent bank states that the machine in question has already auctioned on 30.11.2022, but its possession has not been handed over to the auction purchaser till date. Let the respondent bank file an affidavit to the said effect and state as to how much amount the machine has fetched in the auction.
List the matter on 20.01.2023 for hearing. Till the next date, the possession of the machine in question will not be handed over to the auction purchaser.
(CHAIRPERSON)
-pk
Hari Kishan
Bank of Baroda & Anr.
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
41 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
