Sanjeev Lal and Seema Lal and Anr. v. I C I C I Bank Limited and 3 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The appeals court received an appeal filed by Sanjeev Lal and Seema Lal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The office report noted a deficit court fee and lack of proof for the pre-deposit mentioned in the appeal memo. The case was listed for future proceedings.
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. 337/2021 Date: 15.03.2023
Sanjeev Lal and Seema Lal Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. Present: Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the appellant,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission.
The report of the registrar dated 17.02.2023 shows that the present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the final order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the DRT, Dehradun in S.A. No. 35/2018. The said report further shows that the delay condonation application being I.A. No. 158/2023 and exemption application being I.A. No. 159/2023 are pending consideration. It has been mentioned that the amount of pre-deposit has not been made, but in para 5(2)(h) of the appeal, it has been mentioned that the appellant has already deposited 50% of the amount due, therefore no further amount is required to be made.
The office report dated 14.03.2023 shows that the deficit court fee of Rs. 1750/- is required to be deposited by the appellant and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has already been deposited 50% of the amount due. Let the appellant produce proof of deposit by the next date.
List this case on 26.05.2023.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sanjeev Lal
- appellant
Seema Lal
- respondent
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
24 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court