Deepak K. Shah v. Bank of India & Anr.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Relying a Supreme Court Judgment State Haryana Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. others reported (2000) 7 S.C.C. 348 learned counsel argued considered appellate authority capacity liability pay. That exactly Chairman Apellate Tribunal reducing amount 75% 30%. There unreasonableness order. There illegality consequently reason interfere order.…
Judgment
passed DRAT, Bombay. By DRAT reduced amount liable deposited appeal contemplated section 21 the Act 75% required section 30% amount decreed. Eight week’s given. Petition challenging filed, during pendency of which the period of eight weeks lapses and the main appeal stood automatically dismissed.
#2. Relying a Supreme Court Judgment State Haryana Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. others reported (2000) 7 S.C.C. 348 learned counsel argued considered appellate authority capacity liability pay. That exactly Chairman Apellate Tribunal reducing amount 75% 30%. There unreasonableness order. There illegality consequently reason interfere order. In the result therefore the petition fails and it is dismissed. (V.G. PALSHIKAR) (MRS. RANJANA DESAI) ....
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.