The appeal filed under FAT No. 18 of 2017 was dismissed for default by the High Court after the appellant failed to comply with repeated directions despite appearing via videcon.
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.
16.12.2022 rpan/ 19
FAT 18 of 2017 Bimal Kumar Biswas – Versus – Chinmoyee Biswas
None appears on behalf of the appellant.
In spite of repeated directions the appellant had not
taken necessary steps to put in the requisites.
In view thereof, the appeal, being FAT 18 of 2017 is
dismissed for default.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
Bimal Kumar Biswas
Chinmoyee Biswas
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
