Pooja Govil and Ors. v. Icici Bank Limited and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
An interim order disposing of processual matters regarding the deposit of deficit court fee, service of notices to remaining respondents, and list date. No substantive relief or principles of law were laid down.
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.
I.A. No. 75/2022 In Appeal Dy. No. 452/2021 Date: 25.05.2022
Pooja Govil & Ors. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Present: Shri Rohan Gupta, counsel for the appellants, Shri Kundan Rai, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
The order of the Registrar dated 10.05.2022 shows that the deficit court fee of Rs. 91000/- is required to be deposited, but the appellants are neither borrowers nor guarantors, therefore, the court fee of Rs. 1.00 lac is not applicable in the present case. However, the appellants further deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards court fee. The waiver application has also been filed on the same ground.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that copy of the memo has not been given to him.
Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to serve the copy of memo to the counsel for the respondent-bank within 48 hours, who may file reply by the next date.
Issue notices to the remaining respondents by two modes i.e. Registered Post with A.D. and Speed Post. Steps to be taken by the appellants within a week. Affidavit of service along with tracking report be filed by the next date.
List this case on 15.07.2022 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Pooja Govil & Ors.
- respondent
ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 091090004522021
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
19 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court