Vaibhav Bansal v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge disposed of Dy. No. 546/2022 by listing the case for hearing on 04.03.2024 upon finding that the appellant failed to serve notice on respondents 3, 4 & 5 despite an opportunity. An interim order remains operative.
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. 546/2022 Date: 28.11.2023
Vaibhav Bansal Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors.
Present: Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the appellant, Shri Abhinav Gaur, counsel for the respondent no. 1,
The office report dated 24.11.2023 shows that inspite of last opportunity being granted to the appellant to take steps for service of notice upon the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5, no steps have been taken by the appellant. Accordingly, it appears that the appellant does not want to press any relief against the said respondents.
It is contended that the stay vacation application filed by the respondent-F.I. is pending consideration. No rejoinder has been filed by the appellant to the reply of the respondent no. 1. In case, rejoinder is filed, the matter be listed for hearing.
List this case on 04.03.2024. Till then the interim order, if any, shall remain operative.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the list of parties in the office report should be listed for service of notice.
Whether the matter should be listed for hearing if a rejoinder is filed by the appellant.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Vaibhav Bansal
- respondent
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
14 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court