Listed for admission of an appeal under Section 17 A (2) of the RDB Act seeking transfer of a Transfer Application from DRT, Dehradun to DRT, Lucknow. Defects in stamp and signature were addressed by counsel undertaking compliance.
None granted at this stage; case listed for further hearing on 02.06.2022.
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.
Appeal Dy. No. 238 of 2022
(M/s Vee Aar Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.)
Date: 31.05.2022
Shri Babloo, holding brief of Shri Suneet K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the appellant is present.
Court fee for Application for Condonation of Delay and M.A. for Interim Relief have been deposited online.
As regards Stamp of Firm not affixed with the signature of Appellant, B.H. of Ld. Counsel states that instant Appeal is for transfer of T.A. from one DRT to another DRT and Ld. Counsel undertakes that he will get it affixed as desired by Court.
Further, B.H. of Ld. Counsel also undertakes that Ld. Counsel will put his signature on the Appeal.
The instant Appeal/Application is filed under Section 17 A (2) of the RDB Act for transfer/return of T.A. No. 35/2021 from DRT, Dehradun back to DRT, Lucknow. Application for Condonation of Delay and M.A. for Interim Relief have also been filed with the instant Appeal/Application.
List on 02.6.2022 before Hon’ble Chairperson for admission/order.
Registrar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal under Section 17 A (2) of the RDB Act for transfer of T.A. from one DRT to another is admissible despite defects in stamp and signature.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Vee Aar Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
