The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, took up the appeal via video conferencing. The hearing was adjourned to November 17, 2022, as the appellant's counsel was out of station and unable to carry the case file.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Appeal No.319/2018 Arising out of O.A.No.281/2015 (DRT-II, Delhi)
Yes Bank Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors.
15.11.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Ld. counsel for appellant
Mr. A.K. Mata, Ld. Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Shikhar Kumar, Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 bank
Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Ld. Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Ld. counsel for respondent no.2
Ms. Shreshtha Mathur, proxy Mr. Ankur Sood, Ld. counsel for respondents 3 and 4
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.5, Export Import Bank of India, has assigned the debt in favour of the appellant.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that IFCI, respondent no.6, has assigned the debt in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank, respondent no.1.
Learned counsel for appellant requests for an adjournment as he is out of station today and is not carrying the case file. At his request, list the matter for 17.11.2022 for hearing.
(CHAIRPERSON)
-pk
Yes Bank Ltd.
Kotak Mahindra Bank
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
17 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
