Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed for default as both the petitioner and his advocate were absent on the date of hearing despite the petition being adjourned for dismissal.
None. Writ petition dismissed for default due to non-appearance of petitioner and counsel.
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.
ssk 1/1 WP 382/03-9/2/17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 382 OF 2003
Ramratan Sarjoo Yadav … Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & anr.
… Respondents
None for the petitioner. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, A.P.P. for the State/respondent no.1.
Coram : Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th February, 2017
P.C. :
Though the petition is adjourned to today for dismissal, the petitioner and his advocate are absent. The petition is dismissed for default.
[Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.]
Ramratan Sarjoo Yadav
The State of Maharashtra
R. P. SondurBaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
