Dharmendra v. Uco Bank
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 74
Case No. MA/208/2022 IN OA/198/2016 DHARMENDRA Vs UCO BANK
Date: 17.04.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri C P Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, according to the counsel for the applicant service of defendant no. 1 was complete and there is presumption drawn for the defendant no. 2, he further submits that one advocate Shri Ashutosh Mishra appeared for the defendants.
Counsel for the applicant is arguing that there is no mentioning of the Vakalatnama in the subsequent orders. This is not a valid ground. Once the service is complete, advocate is appearing, so it is the duty of the advocate to keep himself updated with the case proceedings.
In view of the above submissions, MA stands disposed of as dismissed.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Dharmendra
- respondent
UCO Bank
Coram
Vimal Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court