Anil Kumar and Another v. Hdfc Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
This court dismissed requests for waiver or reduction of pre-deposit for an appeal against a bank and ordered a listing on 26.06.2023 for the deposit of the mandatory 25% amount, citing procedural defects in the filed appeal.
What the court decided
Appeal Dy. No. 761/2023 Date: 21.06.2023
Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Ors.
Shri V.K. Pandey, Learned Counsel for the appellant.
Appellant has filed an Application for Waiver (I.A. No. 495/2023) praying to waiver/reduce the amount of 50% towards pre-deposit for preferring of Appeal in terms of proviso of section 18 of the Act and reducing the same to 25% towards pre-deposit on the grounds stated therein.
He has also filed an Application for Exemption (I.A. No. 494/2023) for filing the certified copy of the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 passed by DRT, Lucknow in S.A. No. 379/2023 as the same is not available at this moment and shall be filed in due course.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further moved an Application seeking two days time for deposit of Demand Draft towards 25% of the amount of pre-deposit.
Further during the scrutiny it was found and brought to the notice that without filing any physical copy of the Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal and by only filing it online only on 14.06.2023 the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court on the ground that the pending Appeal is not being considered.
However, the present Appeal has been filed physically on 19.06.2023 and the Hon’ble High Court has passed the order on 14.06.2023 for consideration of Interim Stay Application, when the Appeal was not filed before this Appellate Tribunal physically.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant time for deposit of pre-deposit and fix hearing for appeal
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Anil Kumar & Ors.
- respondent
HDFC Bank Ltd. and Ors.
Coram
Registrar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court