This order allowed an application to substitute Dena Bank as Respondent No.2, reflecting that it merged with Bank of Baroda. The amendment was to be executed within two weeks, and a date for hearing was fixed.
The application is allowed; substitution of Respondent No.2 with Bank of Baroda to be carried out.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT : MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
M.A. No. 96/2020 (Amendment)
in Appeal No. 89/2012
Between ICICI Bank Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s. Mr. Shridhar Sriram Iyengar, …Respondent/s Proprietor of M/s. Supriya International & Ors. Ms. Mitali Adukia, i/b M/s. M. K. Ambalal & Co., Advocate for Appellant.
-: Order dated : 06/06/2022 :-
M.A. No. 96/2020 is an application for substitution of Respondent No.2, Dena Bank, which has merged with Bank of Baroda.
The application is allowed and the amendment shall be carried out within two weeks.
Post on 11.07.2022 for hearing.
Sd/Chairperson
dpj-12
1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application to substitute Dena Bank as respondent due to merger with Bank of Baroda should be allowed.
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Mr. Shridhar Sriram Iyengar
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
