The Court directed the correction of a clerical error in a prior writ petition order, replacing 'defendant No.1' with 'respondent No.1/plaintiff' to accurately identify the beneficiary of a cost order. The miscellaneous criminal complaint was consequently disposed of.
Correction of clerical error in prior writ order; MCC disposed of.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.C.C. No. 692 of 2023
---res. no. 5 ---- Non-Applicants For Applicant : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 1 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 5/State: Mr. Dinesh K. Tiwari, Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
09.01.2024
2
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
vatti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the term 'defendant No.1' in the earlier writ order should be corrected to 'respondent No.1/plaintiff' regarding cost payment?
Prince Kumar Gupta
Central Bank of India
Shrinivas Gupta
Madan
Jagdamba Prasad Gupta
State of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
