Canara Bank versus Ms Varasiddi Vinayaka Cotton Mill

In this an amendment application filed by Appellant for amending paragraph 5.8 of the Memo of Appeal on the ground that due to typographical mistake instead of Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Rule 9 (1) was typed.

¶13

Objection is filed by the Respondent No. 1.

¶14

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. The amendment being formal in nature, I.A. 455 of 2021 is allowed.

¶15

Necessary amendment be carried out within two days.

¶16

Respondents may file opposition to the main appeal. Respondent No. 1 may also file additional opposition, after amendment, if any, within a period of four weeks with advance copy to the Appellant. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶17

List on 9^th March, 2023 for hearing of the appeal along with Diary No. 469 of 2022.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶19

Dated: 21^st December, 2022 05/ac

Canara Bank v. Ms Varasiddi Vinayaka Cotton Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Varasiddi Vinayaka Cotton Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vasantha Arumugam versus South Indian Bank

Ms Vishal and Vishal versus Punjab National Bank

Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Sri Palakurthi Nikesh Kumar versus Indian Bank

Brother And Sister Enterprises versus Canara Bank

Swadesh Ranjan Das versus Ao Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank