Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rajasekhar Mantha, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ
Arpita Debnath and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank and Ors. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay and impleading necessary parties. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. issues concerning bank's sale and tenant's rights. (Para 13 , 16) |
| 3. independence of section 14 and 17 proceedings. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 4. drt's role in adjudicating disputes. (Para 20 , 21) |
1. The application being CAN 1 of 2022 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 153 days in filing the appeal.
2. Sufficient grounds have been made out in the instant application explaining such delay. Hence, the delay is condoned.
3. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2022 is allowed.
Re.: CAN 2 of 2022
4. The application being CAN 2 of 2022 is an application for impleading the auction purchaser of the property from the bank namely Pradip Bhakat.
5. Since the auction purchaser’s interest i.e. Pradip Bhakat, is vitally interlinked to this proceeding, he is a necessary party to this appeal.
6. Let Pradip Bhakat be impleaded as a party respondent to the instant proceeding.
7. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2022 is allowed.
Re.: CAN 4 of 2023
8. The application being CAN 4 of 2023 is an application for substitution of Reshmi Bhagat instead and in place of Pradip Bhagat, who stated to be died during the pendency of the appeal.
9. Let Reshmi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
