Mohammad Haq Ali v. Bank of India and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellant appealed an interim order under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The court noted pending waiver and delay condonation applications and directed issuance of notices to remaining respondents. Matter listed for service.
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. 751/2022 Date: 03.11.2022
Mohammad Haq Ali Vs. Bank of India
Present: Shri Nitesh Kumar Jauhari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashutosh Sharma, counsel for the appellant, Shri Supriy Mishra, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the DRT, Lucknow in S.A. No. 286/2022.
The report of the Registrar dated 14.10.2022 shows that the waiver application being I.A. No. 484/2022 and I.A. No. 483/2022 being delay condonation application are pending consideration. The said report further shows that as per the sale notice dated 12.04.2021, the dues against the appellant is Rs. 1,81,46,503.67 plus interest w.e.f. 08.11.2019 and the secured property has been auctioned by the Bank for Rs. 1.68 crores.
Issue notices on waiver and delay to the remaining respondents by two modes i.e. Registered Post with A.D. and Speed Post. Steps to be taken by the appellant within a week. Affidavit of service along with tracking report be filed by the next date.
List this case on 16.01.2023 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mohammad Haq Ali
- respondent
Bank of India
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
5 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court