The Court condoned a seven-day delay in filing a rejoinder, the delay was condoned
The delay of seven days in filing the rejoinder is condoned, and the application is allowed.
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.
$~8
MALABAR COASTAL HOLDINGS LLP ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Varsha Banerjee and Ms.Divya Krishnan, Advocates
versus
SAURASHTRA CEMENTS LIMITED AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate with Mr.Purti Marwaha, Mr.C.S.Chauhan and Mr.Henna George, Advocates for R-2 Mr.Abhinav Vashisht, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Ajay K.Jain, MrAtanu Mukherjee and Mr.Abhishek Agarwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 20.01.2016
CM No.1768/2016
For the reasons stated in the application delay of 7 days in filing the rejoinder is condoned.
The application is allowed.
W.P.(C) No.9965/2015
W.P.(C) No.9965/2015
Page 1 of 2
24, 2015.
CM No.24248/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 20, 2016
mamta
W.P.(C) No.9965/2015
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the rejoinder in the pending application needs to be condoned.
Malabar Coastal Holdings LLP
Saurashtra Cements Limited
Pradeep Nandrajog
Mukta 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
