The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 226, filed in appellant's nature, as non-prosecution due to the petitioner no longer being interested in pursuing it.
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.
$~4
IN THE MATTER OF SINO CREDITS AND LEASING LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
O R D E R
% 11.01.2016
There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. On the previous date also, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was posted for today in the interest of justice.
This matter has been repeatedly adjourned after 20th January, 2015, when directions were issued to the applicants to file an affidavit clarifying the discrepancies noticed in the petition and as set down in the aforesaid order passed on 20th January, 2015.
It would appear that the petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing this petition.
The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
JANUARY 11, 2016 AK
Sino Credits and Leasing Limited
Respondent
Sudershan Kumar Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
