Single bench dismissed a miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for want of prosecution, noting the appellants failed to appear or make representations after two hearings.
Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
HMIlllIHIHHIIIHIIHllH 00044562
J
§FE;E ...... l‘\lB)l
HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
Misc.ApgealNo.458of1989
APPELLANTS MojeshKumarNand&Others CLAIMANTS g
g
Versus
‘ . 1 t
1555
‘
J.K.Parasar&Others .
RESPONDENTS
(AppealUnderSection173(1)ofMotorVehiclesAct,1988)
SingleBench : Hon’bleShriSatishK.Agnihotri,J.
Present:— None fortheAppeHants. ’ Shri P.Datta,AdvocatefortheRespondentNo.5.
ORDER ORAL) (Passedon this 29‘“day of Aprii,2010)
The matteriscalledforhearingtwice.Onbothoccasions,none
appearsnorisanyrepresentationmadeonbehalfoftheappellants.
The appellantsmaynotbeinterestedinthematter.
prosecution.
N ‘ Sd/[\f/ ‘SatishK.Agnihotri : Judge
f .3owri
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mojesh Kumar Nand and Others
J.K. Parasar & Others
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
