Writ Petition dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner and counsel were absent without appearing before the court to obtain orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
6.wp.1316.13.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2013
Sarbanand Lokai Gupta. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent
None for the Petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. PATEL, J.J.
DATED : AUGUST 29, 2013.
P.C.:
The Petitioner and his Advocate, both are absent, though their names are correctly shown on the Board. When this Writ Petition was placed before this Court in May, 2013, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the Petitioner and, thereafter, the Petitioner and his Advocate have not even bothered to obtain any orders in terms of prayers of the Petition before the Court. The Petition has been appearing on board and their names were correctly displayed on Board. In these circumstances and when the Petitioner and his Advocate both are absent today, the Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(G. S. PATEL, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1 of 1
Sarbanand Lokai Gupta
The State of Maharashtra
S. C. Dharmadikari
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
