Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)

M/S Icici Bank Limited vs Nidhi Sharma on 23 December, 2019

8. It is submitted by Mr. Bhalla, ld. counsel for the Bank, that the Bank is incurring parking charges for keeping the vehicle. It is further submitted that the suit itself having been decreed, no useful purpose would be served by not selling the vehicle. Ld. counsel also submits that despite orders having been passed in M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Kalkal [CM(M) 1821/2019, decided on 23rd December, 2019] and M/s. ICICI Bank Limited v. Nidhi Sharma [CM (M) 1814/2019, decided on 23rd December, 2019], which rely upon ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kamal Kumar Garewal [FAO 49/2015, decided on 29th May, 2015], and the same having been placed CM (M) 16/2020 Page 6 of 8 before the Trial Court, the same were not considered by the Trial Court and the application seeking permission for sale of the vehicle has simply been adjourned.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - P M Singh - Full Document
1