This interim order allowed a substitution application due to the expiry of a respondent, directing the appellant to file necessary affidavits and listing the case for service.
Substitution application allowed; order for substitution to be made by appellant.
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. 55/2016 Date: 24.11.2022
Bhagwandas Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India & Anr.
Present: Shri A. K. Srivastava, counsel for the appellant, Shri Rakesh Mishra, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent no. 2 has expired and substitution application is pending consideration.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that he has no objection, if the substitution application is allowed.
Accordingly, the substitution application is allowed. Let the necessary substitution be made by the appellant in the array of party by the next date.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he shall file affidavit of service by the next date to authenticate the service upon the remaining respondents.
List this case on 14.02.2023 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Bhagwandas Yadav
Union Bank of India & Anr.
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
