Adjournment granted in a regular appeal where the appellant's counsel sought additional time due to the Senior Advocate's illness and failure to serve the respondent regarding a recall application.
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.
M.A. No. 41/2022 In Regular Appeal No. 122/2017 Date: 12.05.2023
Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the appellants, Shri Supriy Mishra, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Senior Advocate Shri Joy Saha will argue the matter, but on account of his ailment, he could not come from Kolkata, therefore, adjournment is sought for.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the copy of recall application has not been served upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he shall serve the same upon the counsel for the respondent-Bank during course of the day, who may file reply by the next date fixed.
As prayed, list this case on 27.07.2023 for hearing on the recall application.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant adjournment and list the recall application for hearing.
Appellants
Respondent-Bank
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
