Full Text
Translation output
V
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)1151/2018,CM APPL.No.38978/2018
K GANGADHARAN
Petitioner
Through; Mr.Yash Prakash,Advoeate.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)1151/2018,CM APPL.No.38978/2018
K GANGADHARAN
Petitioner
Through; Mr.Yash Prakash,Advoeate.
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Khanna, Mr.Mohit Taneja, Advocates.
Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Khanna, Mr.Mohit Taneja, Advocates.
CM(M)1152/2018,CM APPL.No.38979/2018
K GANGADHARAN
Petitioner
Through: Mr.Yash Prakash,Advocate.
K GANGADHARAN
Petitioner
Through: Mr.Yash Prakash,Advocate.
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Khanna, Mr.Mohit Taneja, Advocates.
Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Khanna, Mr.Mohit Taneja, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
13.12.2018 This petition challenges the order dated 06.08.2018 whereby the learned Trial Court has noted since the petitioner advoeate has not appeared on various dates and has failed to move an application for substitution of the authorised representative of Canara Bank he be replaced by another counsel. A request was made to the competent authority of the Canara Bank to take steps in this regard. The
2018:DHC:9319 petitioner says he is handling the matters ofthe Canara Bank since the year 2000 and on 06.08.2018 he was instructed by Canara Bank to appear before the DRT and hence could not appear before the learned
Trial Court. Further it is submitted there was no need for appearance of the counsel since the bank being a decree holder was receiving payments directly in its accountfrom thejudgment debtor and merely dates were given.
Considering the submissions so made, the observations made by the learned Trial Court being not necessary, stood expunged from the order dated 06.08.2018.
The petitions and pending applications stands disposed of in terms ofabove.
YOGESH KHANNA,J.
DECEMBER 13,2018 (DV 2018:DHC:9319
13.12.2018 This petition challenges the order dated 06.08.2018 whereby the learned Trial Court has noted since the petitioner advoeate has not appeared on various dates and has failed to move an application for substitution of the authorised representative of Canara Bank he be replaced by another counsel. A request was made to the competent authority of the Canara Bank to take steps in this regard. The
2018:DHC:9319 petitioner says he is handling the matters ofthe Canara Bank since the year 2000 and on 06.08.2018 he was instructed by Canara Bank to appear before the DRT and hence could not appear before the learned
Trial Court. Further it is submitted there was no need for appearance of the counsel since the bank being a decree holder was receiving payments directly in its accountfrom thejudgment debtor and merely dates were given.
Considering the submissions so made, the observations made by the learned Trial Court being not necessary, stood expunged from the order dated 06.08.2018.
The petitions and pending applications stands disposed of in terms ofabove.
YOGESH KHANNA,J.
DECEMBER 13,2018 (DV 2018:DHC:9319
JUDGMENT