U C O Bank v. State Bank of India and 3 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge allowed time for respondents to file replies following the assurance that notices were served via publication, listing the matter for future reply.
What did the court decide?
Respondents directed to file reply by the next date. Case listed on 05.09.2023.
What the court decided
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.
Appeal Dy. No. 370/2020 Date: 24.05.2023
Present: Shri Anuj Mandhyan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mrinal Lalchandani, counsel for the appellant, Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the respondent-Bank, None for the respondent no. 4,
The office report dated 23.05.2023 shows that no affidavit of service along with proof of publication has been filed with regard to the service of notice upon the respondent no. 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the notice upon the respondent no. 3 has already been served through paper publication, which is on record. Let the served respondents file reply by the next date.
List this case on 05.09.2023 for reply.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lack of affidavit of service overrides the claim that notice was served via paper publication.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mrinal Lalchandani
- respondent
Bank
- respondent
Respondent no. 4
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court