Ram Prakash Agnihotri v. Dena Bank and 2 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The court postponed the hearing of an appeal regarding service of notice on a bank following its merger with Bank of Baroda and allowed an interim amendment application to include the successor bank in the array of parties.
What did the court decide?
Urgency application allowed; listing preponed; amendment application allowed to include Bank of Baroda as respondent; amendment to be made within a week.
What the court decided
Appeal Dy. No. 439/2019 Date: 18.07.2023
Ram Prakash Agnihotri Vs. Dena Bank & Ors.
Present: Shri Ashutosh Sharma, counsel for the appellant, Heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the urgency application being I.A. No. 564/2023.
For the reason stated in the urgency application, the same is allowed and the date already fixed for 07.08.2023 is preponed today.
It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Dena Bank has merged with the Bank of Baroda, therefore, the notice as directed earlier could not be served upon the Bank at the address specified in the present appeal. After merger, the address of the Bank is changed, therefore, an application for amendment in the array of party has been moved so that the service of notice may be effected upon the respondentBank.
Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-Bank of Baroda, who has been served with the copy of memo as well as urgency application. Let the respondent-Bank file response by the next date.
In view of the above, the amendment application being I.A. No. 528/2023 is allowed. Let the necessary amendment be made by the appellant in the array of parties within a week.
List this case on 03.11.2023 for reply.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ram Prakash Agnihotri
- respondent
Dena Bank & Ors.
- intervenor
Bank of Baroda
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · July
- CNR
- 091090004392019
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court