Dilip Agarwal v. State Bank of India and Ors.
A compact analysis
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 93 of 2017) (Arising out of S.A. 676 of 2013 in DRT-1,Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
23.03.2022 Dilip Agarwal … Appellant Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad & 4 Others … Respondents Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellant
Ms. Mekhala Kanji, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 None for other Respondents
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : It is pointed out that the name of Respondent No. 1/Bank has changed. Learned Counsel for the Appellant should take appropriate steps for amendment in the Memo of Appeal within a week.
As per the Affidavit-of-Service dated 13th June, 2017, Respondent No. 2 is served but none is present to represent Respondent No. 2/Punjab National Bank.
Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 are represented through Learned Counsel, Mr. Prasenjit Paul; but none appears to represent them today.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit with advance copy to Appellant; rejoinder, if any , be filed within a week thereafter with advance copy to Respondent No. 1.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Dilip Agarwal
- respondent
State Bank of Hyderabad
- respondent
Punjab National Bank
- respondent
The 3rd Respondent
- respondent
The 4th Respondent
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
10 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court