A miscellaneous appeal treated as dismissed for non-compliance of a peremptory order leaving 4 weeks for the 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.
l i
d» g/ 1/
wn ®
@
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARHATBILASPUR(C.GJ MAfg)/No2}/( OF 2059/ WWW gingh ggmh APPEAL UNDERSECTION17“3/OFTHEMOTOR EHICLES ACT 1988
APPELANT
wi§0N—APPLICANT N03 )
VERSUS
XI-HC-78
HW,W,W
M hCCXCML) ”'0' 13,),‘3 WW Warcc)1$§/wrm2004p
WW(W) |
|
|---|---|
| WWW WWW |
mmwm WW§WW %awfr?man%21 e |
| 14l12i2006 Shri Dashrath Gupta, counse ifor the appellant. At the request of the Iearr alloWed to remove the default faiii liab‘le to be dismissed without furthe // I led counsel, finally 4 weeks’ time is 1g this Miscellaneous Appeal shall be r reference to the Court. Di“? Ra”aheb De |
|
| P.T.O. |
XI—HC-78
WW, WW W
V‘(A.QC.§§.)gffq/m’ /)£%¥'%r)29§€“L3H 2°“
.
@D
WW(W)
1 mam . WWW W®1§R
‘ WWW r mmwm aamm q
(99—02-2007:
h
This M.A.C.(PR3 No. 3229/2006
is treated as dismissed for non—
compliance of peremptory order dated
14-12-2006‘ (For details note sheet part
’
l u ‘ may kindly be seen.) Counsel be
informed accordingly.
i
‘: ' ‘
Sd/- r W
‘
ARG) ,
DA.
.e
mg
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Sunil Prasad
Sanjeev Kumar Sahu
Dhananjay Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
