Vinsari Fruitech Ltd. v. Karur Vysya Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Since the Respondent Bank stated it would not auction a scheduled property, the Special Appeal and Application were disposed of as infructuous.
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.
| 25.06.2025 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.295 of 2025 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Aayu Saxena, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms Mittal Parekh and Mr Advait H. i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.1, Bank. Mr T. Haridas and Mr Amit M., Officer of the Respondent No.1, Bank. Mr Pranav Pradhan, Advocate for Respondent No.3. None for other Respondents. |
|||
| 10 11 |
Vakalatnama (exhibit-10) and Reply affidavit (exhibit-11) filed by Ld. Advocate for Respondent No.3. Heard on I.A. No.1294 of 2025. During the course of arguments, Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank submits that Bank is not going to auction the said property which is scheduled on 27.06.2025. The statement is taken on record and will act as an order of the Tribunal. In view of submission made by Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank, I.A. |
Page 1 of 2
| No.1294 of 2025 along with S.A. No.295 of 2025 stands disposed of being infructuous. |
||
|---|---|---|
| File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. |
Closed | |
| rst - 07 | Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Page 2 of 2
Applicant
Bank (Respondent No.1)
Respondent No.3
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court