First appeal dismissed for want of prosecution as no counsel appeared for the appellant after notices were issued.
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of appellant.
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.
BEFORE. Tm: HON'BLE HIGH comm OE JULICATURu, AT JABaLWr x FIRST APPEAL No. gqol? 19%— MO Ob l'Irbl APP‘AAL UMJLJR "“LTLON 96 OF “I‘m LOU OF CIVIL PhOCuDLRE; - 1908. ‘3“ bLttN F z $1—1RI RAMKRISHNA SING}? gmE‘LLNDgggT NO. 1. R/Q QUARTERNo. M/H6 S .13 .C .L. GEVARA PROJECT W/J. DISTRICT BlLkSPUR (M.P.). -Vel‘SU.$— RESvPONDL‘INT $10.1 STATE BANE» OF ENDIA ACT 1955 PULXNT IFF 'thr Dugn author ised B an king ‘7,3e&3 through Branch Manager, Branch §usmanda, District BilaSpur (MR). aria? ONmN-E No. 2. M/g ROHNI A3S0CIATE$ Dblb‘mguALxIT No.2. thr eugh Dire ctor . \ A- Registered office‘AIF Westnend New Delhi - 1’10 021. Quarter No. D-16Gavara Projectm Gavera District BilaSpur WP; D, rLbPON‘tm lm_21V0. DOUrFH .AhiE 1 COAL FIELDS LIMITED l DurgNDANT \ro 5 12hr ougn President anti Managing Director S.i:§.C.L. Head Office Bilaspur , Dis’crict Bilaspur (M.P.). CLAIM m APPaAL VALUE}: AT Rs. 1,20,978.00. gouaTgaasAEEMD AT __ Rs. 9,440.90.
The appellant is being aggr ieved by the Judgement, and decree aated 31/1/1998 passea by IV Am J. Bilaspur in C1v1l Suit No. ~B/95 parties be mg " State Bank V/a. riamxrishna and 2 others /'1 ’ begs. to file this anpeal an the folluw mg greunds amongst others .
20 W
W m (13W)
| ané‘mmfawim ammm |
mmwm K |
WWW§J¢§Q°rTfW %?aim |
|---|---|---|
| S B ' HON’BLE JUSTICE MF 07.02.2014 |
i PRITINKER DIWAKER |
|
| None for the appellant(s) Shri Anand Kumar Gupta Even after the matter \A appeared for the appellant(s), Court has no other option b prosecution. Accordingly‘ the appeal |
, counsel for respondent No.3. 'as called in the second round, none herefore, in these circumstances, this ls dismissed for want of prosecution Sdl- \<br>Pritinker Judge Diwaker t to dismiss the case for want of // \ |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to lack of appearance by appellant.
Shri Ramkrishna Singh
Revl/vs Responding 10.1 State Bank of India
Ro 5 12 Coal Fields Limited
M/S Rohni Associates Development Lit No 2
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
