Disposed

Ms Shree Laxmi Trolly through Properitor Lakhan Vishwakarma So Ramchandra Vishwakarma v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT17 Jul 2023SA/469/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Application was allowed, treated as withdrawn, to permit the Applicants to file a fresh stay application challenging subsequent sale notices within the prescribed time limit.

What did the court decide?

Special Application allowed in nature of withdrawal to grant liberty to file a fresh stay application challenging subsequent sale notice within prescribed time.

Ms Shree Laxmi Trolly through Properitor Lakhan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2023)

CONTD. ORDE

SHEET

PAGE No........

CASE No

DATE	DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER	REMARK
t sA469t2 17 t07t23	h $ ShriAtulC ShriVivek oudharl,Adv tbrtheApplicants hukla,AdvfortheRespondent l.Matteris takcnLrponapplicationlorurgc hearinglllcdon bchall'o1'thc Applicants. 2. Onmatterbeingtaken praysforhearingon applicationforgrant ol'stay ApplicantCouns IANo.3225l1 3.Respondent Counselraised anobjectionth inSAApplicantshavechallengedthcearli auctionnoficcdatcd22101123or.rrvhir pursuantauctionu,asschedr.rlcclon26105/l however gugtioncouldnot getmaterializr since bidders havewronglymenlionedtl amountunderthe^proposedbidtherelo Respondent-Bankhascanccllccltltccalli auctions.:hidrlingulicshutrctiort[r1issttit afreshsalenpticedated 21t06123. '). 4.Respondcrt Counsellurther subtritsth sinceearlicrauctionhas alrcadybccnlail, causeofactiondoesnotsurviven-lo thereforeSA.ofApplicantshavebecon infi'ustous'an:d:npplicants areobligcto^I-i afi'eshSn^rllil:thclclcsitcstoclrallcrtl _ I i. subsequetltSalcttrrttcc. 'l 5.Onbeinga(tcanppticantCounselsubm thatlook'inEr,rtoⁱobjcctionraiseclby'^t Respondcntir:blLrrrsclnon,Applicants^pra libertvto,fileaficsh withdrawthisSA. SAanddcsires rt a1 d J t r h 3 d e t: (t E) e I , tS e 'S to

coNTD. oRDEH-sneet

PAGE No

CASE No

DATE	DESCBTPflON OF THE ORDER	REMARK
	I 6.Lookingtolegalob.jectionofthe RespondcntCounsel,oralpray,er.ofApplicant Counsel isajllowed.
	7 ThisSAisbeingdisposccl ol. as rvil.hdrawn with subs libcrtl,to lilcalicshtochallcrrsc equcnl.salc noticcwithinprescribetinle limit.
	8.I{ecordbeconsignedto thcrecorclroom. I s/D (RamNifrai^put.t; PresidineC)fficer D.ll.T,.labalpur (M.P&C.C)

Ms Shree Laxmi Trolly through Properitor Lakhan Vishwakarma So Ramchandra Vishwakarma v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shree Laxmi Trolly through Properitor Lakhan Vishwakarma So Ramchandra Vishwakarma v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Reeta Agarwal versus Union Bank of India

sunil jain versus manibhavnam home finance india Pvt. ldt

Shri Dadarao Tale versus Vastu Housing Finance Corportion

State Bank of India versus Prateek Kamesh

Smt Mintu Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Gulab Chand Sahu versus Uco Bank