This order corrects a typographical mistake in a previous judgment dated 01.07.2024 regarding the name of the advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2.
The correction application allowing the name of the advocate for Respondent No. 2 to be read correctly in the previous order is allowed.
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.
Dy. No. 1165/2024 In Appeal Dy. No. 159/2022 Date: 27.08.2024
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the appellant-Bank, Shri D. N. Awasthi, counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 2,
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the correction application, wherein it is contended that in the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed by this Tribunal, the name of Shri D. N. Awasthi was mentioned that Shri Awasthi had appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 1 i.e. U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd., whereas he had filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 01.07.2024 may be corrected accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid and the fact that the correction sought to be made is a typographical mistake, therefore, the correction application is allowed and it is ordered that in the order dated 01.07.2024, it be read that Shri D. N. Awasthi, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 instead of respondent no. 1. This order shall be read conjointly with the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by this Tribunal.
Justice R. D. Khare
Chairperson
Anupam
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Ltd.
And Ors.
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
23 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
