Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Icici Bank Limited vs Naveen Kalkal on 23 December, 2019

Icici Bank Limited vs Sh. Naveen Saraswat on 7 January, 2021

9. In view of abovesaid reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants for a sum of Rs.7,05,493.97/­ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly including the pleader fee. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date: 2021.01.07 Typed to the dictation directly (Geetanjali) 16:24:43 +0530 Corrected and announced Ld. Additional District Judge­03 in the open court on this day Central/Tis Hazari Courts 07.01.2021 Delhi/ 07.01.2021 CS DJ No. 3512/2017 Page No. 5 of 5 ICICI Vs. Naveen Saraswat
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Icici Bank Ltd vs Saha Infratech Pvt Ltd And Anr on 7 December, 2021

In the judgment dated 23.12.2019 in CM (M) 1821/2019 [M/S ICICI Bank Limited vs. Naveen Kalkal], this Court permitted sale in a case where the borrower had not appeared before the Trial Court at all. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 28.12.2020, in W.P.(C) 11236/2020 and connected matters, also permitted sale in case where the vehicles have been surrendered voluntarily by the borrowers. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, this factor has been noticed as the reason why notice is not required to be issued in the petitions. In the present case, these factors will have to be examined by the DRT. Ms. Bhalla states that the service has in fact been effected upon them by all permissible methods and they have not entered appearance. These contentions may be examined by the DRT.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document

Icici Bank Ltd vs Jyoti And Others on 6 December, 2021

In the judgment dated 23.12.2019 in CM (M) 1821/2019 [M/S ICICI Bank Limited vs. Naveen Kalkal], this Court permitted sale in a case where the borrower had not appeared before the Trial Court at all. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 28.12.2020, in W.P.(C) 11236/2020 and connected matters, also permitted sale in case where the vehicles have been surrendered voluntarily by the borrowers. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, this factor has been noticed as the reason why notice is not required to be issued in the petitions. In the present case, these factors will have to be examined by the DRT. Ms. Bhalla states that the service has in fact been effected upon them by all permissible methods and they have not entered appearance. These contentions may be examined by the DRT.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - P Jalan - Full Document

Icici Bank Ltd vs Pawan Kumar Gaur & Anr on 2 December, 2021

In the judgment dated 23.12.2019 in CM (M) 1821/2019 [M/S ICICI Bank Limited vs. Naveen Kalkal], this Court permitted sale in a case where the borrower had not appeared before the Trial Court at all. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 28.12.2020, in W.P.(C) 11236/2020 and connected matters, also permitted sale in case where the vehicles have been surrendered voluntarily by the borrowers. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, this factor has been noticed as the reason why notice is not required to be issued in the petitions. In the present case, these factors will have to be examined by the DRT. Ms. Bhalla states that the service has in fact been effected upon them by all permissible methods and they have not entered appearance. These contentions may be examined by the DRT.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - P Jalan - Full Document

Icici Bank Ltd vs Riyasat Khan Anr on 3 December, 2021

In the judgment dated 23.12.2019 in CM (M) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed W.P.(C) 13674/2021 & connected matters Page 3 of 5 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:04.12.2021 12:10:05 1821/2019 [M/S ICICI Bank Limited vs. Naveen Kalkal], this Court permitted sale in a case where the borrower had not appeared before the Trial Court at all. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 28.12.2020, in W.P.(C) 11236/2020 and connected matters, also permitted sale in case where the vehicles have been surrendered voluntarily by the borrowers. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, this factor has been noticed as the reason why notice is not required to be issued in the petitions. In the present case, these factors will have to be examined by the DRT. Ms. Bhalla states that the service has in fact been effected upon them by all permissible methods and they have not entered appearance. These contentions may be examined by the DRT.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document
1