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.
PAGE No.
CONTD. ORDER.SHE ET
CASE No...
| DATE | DESCRIPTION OFTHEORDER | REMARK |
|---|---|---|
| M22t22 15t07t22 |
Shri Vishwa mohanBhardwaj,AdvfortheAppticant Nonappticants arenotnoticed AppticantCounseIheard. OriginalRCcatledand perused. AppticantCounselpointedoutthatthoughon judgmentdated20/01/20DefendantNo.1M/sSahayog CteanMitkPrivateLimitedismentionasDefendant No.1andalsoasDefendantNo.8YogeshPatidaris mentionedbutundercausetitteoftheRC No.459/2020thenameofdefendantNo.1and defendantNo.8ismissingandatsopointedoutthat defendantNo.7ShyamaPatidarismention under two placesatCDNo.7andalsoatCDNo.8whichiswrongty mentioned. Andatsopointedout thatinjudgmentpara-4the Applicant Bankawardedpendenteliteandfuture interest@177op,a.butinRCinplaceoffutureinterest @0%hasbeen mentionedwhilethereshoutdbeas per award@12%. Onperusaloftheoriginatrecoverycertificateit reveatsthataspointedoutbytheAppticantCounsel typographicaIerrorsareexitsundertheRecovery certificatewhichistiabtetoberectified. ThereforeappticationfitedbytheAppticantCounsel uls26(21of theRDBActisatlowed. Itis orderthattypographicalerrorasindicatedabove be corrected undertheoriginalRecoveryCertificate thereaftercorrectedRCbesentto therecoveryofficer forrecoveryasperrules. Asaboveapplicationisdisposedoff. |
|
| (Ra Nlwas Patet) Presidingofficer | |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether typographical errors in the Recovery Certificate require correction under Section 26(2) of the RDB Act.
Whether the applicant's application for correction of clerical/slender errors in the recovery certificate is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court