Brij Mohan Chopra v. State Bank of India and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The court rejected an urgency application filed by the appellant to expedite an appeal. The application was dismissed because the matter was already fixed for a later date and the demolition of property by the auction purchaser did not constitute sufficient ground for priority.
What did the court decide?
Urgency application No. 386/2023 was rejected.
What the court decided
Appeal Dy. No. 495/2022 Date: 19.05.2023
Present: Shri Satish Agarwal along with Shri V. K. Shukla, Shri Yashvardhan Agrawal and Shri Aditya Nayak, counsels for the appellant, Shri P. K. Srivastava, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. No. 386/2023 being urgency application, in which it has been stated that the pleadings are complete between the parties and as the auction purchaser has demolished the auctioned property, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be preponed and decided at the earliest.
The report of the Registrar dated 17.05.2023 shows that the matter is already fixed for 03.07.2023.
In view of the above, no good ground is made out in the urgency application for expediting the matter. Therefore, the urgency application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
List this case on the date already fixed i.e. 03.07.2023.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient grounds exist to expedite the appeal as an application for urgency.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Appellant
- respondent
Bank
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
12 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court