GUNJAN NALODE v. CANARA BANK
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Chhattisgarh judgment dated 2020-09-30. GUNJAN NALODE v. CANARA BANK. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 446 of 2020 1. Gunjan Nalode, S/o Late Shri Pratap Rao Nalode, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No. 331, Ward No 09, Shikshak Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant Versus 1. Canara Bank Through The Chief Executive Officer, Head Office, 112 J. C. Road, Bangaluru 560002. 2. Manager, Canara Bank, Branch Telibandha, G. E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. M/s C1 India Pvt. Ltd, Udyog Vihar Phase 2, Gulf Petrochem Building, Building No. 301, Gurgaon Haryana 122015. 4. Daanish Moeen, M/s C1 India Pvt. Ltd. Udyog Vihar Phase 2, Gulf Petrochem Building, Building No. 301, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015. 5. Mr. Bhisham Kumar Kukreja, R/o House No. 90/10, Ward No. 02, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Ayushi Kukreja, Resident Of House No. 90/10, Ward No. 02, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7. Smt. Sandhya Shukla, W/o Shri Satyendra Shukla, R/o Quarter No.
A/4, BSNL Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 -----Respondents For Applicant : None For State : None Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 30. 09. 2020 1. The present MCC has been filed seeking for modification in the Order dated 04. 09. 2020 passed in WPC No. 1999 of 2020. 2. The office has pointed out a clerical error on the part of the office in -2- the order, which was incorrectly uploaded. The order reflects that thename of the counsel for the parties have wrongly got typed, which has been uploaded, the name of the counsel for the petitioner was reflected as “Mr. Basant Kaiwartya ” and the counsel appearing for the Respondent was reflected as “Mr. Mateen Siddiqui” whereas in the original order, the counsel who had argued the matter on behalf of the petitioner was “Mr. Amrito Das” and the counsel who had represented the contesting party the Respondent No. 1 and 2 was “Mr. Akhilesh Mishra”.
The error seems to be a pure clerical error on the part of the office. 3. The MCC stands allowed and the office is permitted to rectify the uploaded version and upload the corrected version of the order and in the corrected version the name of “Mr. Amrito Das, Counsel for the petitioner” and “Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2” be reflected instead of “Mr. Basant Kaiwartya and Mr. Mateen Siddiqui” 4. With the aforesaid observation, the present MCC stands allowed and disposed off. Let a copy of this order be made part of the record of he writ Petition WPC 1999/2020. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul
Source: High Court of Chhattisgarh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.