An appeal wherein counsel for the appellant contended regarding liability as an owner of half property and sufficient court fee, while the bank's counsel sought time for filing reply on fee payment issues, leading to an adjournment.
Time granted for filing reply; case listed on 02.11.2022.
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. 393/2019/2022 Date: 13.10.2022
Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.
Present: Shri S.K. Gupta, counsel for the applicants, Shri Rakesh Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1- Bank,
Heard the learned counsels for both the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had entered into a registered agreement to sale regarding half portion of the property in question with the borrower and within the period specified for execution of sale deed, the same was executed by the respondent no. 2 in favour fof the appellant within one year. It is further contended that the respondent no. 2 did not inform the appellant about creation of mortgage over the property in dispute. It is also contended that the appellant is owner of only half portion of the property in question, therefore, the liability of the appellant is only half of the debt due, although the appellant is not borrower as per provisions of law. Accordingly, the court fee paid is sufficient.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the court fee is payable by the appellant as per Rule 13(D) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. However, the learned counsel prays for two weeks’ time for filing reply in this regard, which is granted.
List this case on 02.11.2022 for reply.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court fee is payable by the appellant as per Rule 13(D) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Kumar and Anr.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.
R. D. Khare
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
