Baijnath Prasad Mehta and Baijnath Prasad Mahto and Baijnath Mahto v. Corporation Bank
DRATREGULAR APPEAL/231/2015
What the court decided
AI extract
Outcome
Listed for service on notice.
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.
Regular Appeal No. 231/2015 Date: 30.03.2022
Baijnath Prasad Mehta and Baijnath Prasad Mahto and Baijnath Mahto Vs. Corporation Bank
Present: Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, counsel for the appellant, Shri S. D. Sahai, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
The office report dated 29.03.2022 shows that as per order dated 29.12.2020, notices were issued and handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant for service on the respondents, but no affidavit of service has been filed to authenticate that the notices have been served. Report further shows that no one appears on behalf of the respondents no. 3, 4 & 5. The record shows that the reply of the Bank is on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to deposit remaining amount towards pre-deposit. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents no. 1 & 2 are the contesting party and other respondents are the proforma respondents only. However, as per earlier order, the affidavit of service be filed by the next date.
List this case on 28.07.2022 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
Baijnath Prasad Mehta
Baijnath Prasad Mahto
Baijnath Mahto
Corporation Bank
R. D. Khare
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court