The High Court of Delhi granted an adjournment to the petitioner's counsel due to indisposition of the son of the counsel, relisting the writ petition on 5th October, 2016. Exemption was allowed and the application disposed of.
Exemption allowed. Relist on 5th October, 2016.
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.
$~13 (13.9.2016)
MADAN LAL GULATI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sudhir Sukhija, proxy counsel
versus
THE INDIAN BANK STAFF COOP G/H SOCIETY LTD. ..... Respondent Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA O R D E R % 14.09.2016
CM No.33093/2016(exemption)
Exemption allowed.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7979/2016
Request for adjournment is made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the son of the counsel is indisposed. Relist on 5th October, 2016.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
SUNITA GUPTA, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
rs
MADAN LAL GULATI
THE INDIAN BANK STAFF COOP G/H SOCIETY LTD.
SANJIV KHANNA
SUNITA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
