Mukesh Jaiswal v. Bank of Baroda and 3 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
This note is for thin filler cases.
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. 13/2023
(Mukesh Jaiswal Vs. Bank of Baroda)
Date: 20.02.2023
Shri V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the appears and removes the defects No. 1, 4 and 5 by mentioning the required information at the relevant place. With regard to defect No. 2 he submits that the present appeal is filed against the order passed under section 30 of the RDB Act, where 50% of the debt has already been deposited. So far as the defect No. 3 is concerned, the affidavit is sweared by Oath Commissioner, hence, notarization is not required.
In view of the above, let the case be listed before the Hon’ble Chairperson on 03.03.2023 for admission.
Registrar
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mukesh Jaiswal
- respondent
Bank of Baroda
Coram
Shukla
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · February
- CNR
- 091090000132023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
8 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court