Gajendra Singh Negi v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and 2 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Interim list order in an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against a DRT order. Urgency stay and waiver applications were made infructuous; notice issued for delay condonation.
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. 778/2023 Date: 13.07.2023
Gajendra Singh Negi Vs. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.
Present: Shri D. N. Awasthi, counsel for the appellant,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the final order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the DRT, Allahabad in S.A. No. 397/2021.
The report of the Registrar dated 05.07.2023 shows that the urgency application being I.A. No. 489/2023, stay application being I.A. no. 490/2023, waiver application being I.A. no. 491/2023, delay condonation application being I.A. No. 492/2023 and exemption application being I.A. No. 493/2023 have been filed.
Since the matter has been taken up today, therefore the urgency application being I.A. No. 489/2023 has become infructuous and is disposed off as such.
Issue notice to the respondents on the delay condonation application by two modes i.e. Registered Post with A.D. and Speed Post. Steps to be taken by the appellant within a week. Affidavit of service along with tracking report be filed by the next date.
List this case on 26.10.2023 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Gajendra Singh Negi
- respondent
Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · July
- CNR
- 091090007782023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court