The appellate court dismissed the appeal and connected application for default as the appellant was absent and no fresh vakalatnama was filed.
Dismissal of appeal and connected application for default.
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.
FA 213 of 2015 Item-8. 22-03-2023 CAN 1 of 2016 (old CAN 10363 of 2016)
sg Ct. 8
Ajoy Chowdhury Versus Reena Bhattacharjee
Mr. Rabindranah Mahata, Adv. Mr. A.S. Ray, Adv.
…for the respondent
The department has filed a report dated 20th March, 2023 from which it appears that the administrative notice issued upon the address of the appellant by speed post with acknowledgement due was returned with the postal remark “Left”. No fresh vakalatnama in connection with the instant appeal has been filed.
On the earlier occasion, we have allowed Mr. Prantick Ghosh, learned Counsel for the appellant to retire from this matter. In the earlier order, we have also recorded that “in the event the appellant is not represented on the adjourned date, it shall be presumed that the appellant is not interested to proceed with the appeal and the appeal and the application may be heard on the basis of the available record”.
However, since the appellant is not represented, we dismiss the appeal and the connected application for default.
All interim orders, if any, stand, vacated.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajoy Chowdhury
Reena Bhattacharjee
Uday Kumar
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
