The High Court of Delhi stayed an impugned order that recorded factual assertions. It found the appellant's prejudice claim prima facie unfounded and disposed of the appeal and applications without interference.
Appeal and pending applications disposed of without interference.
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.
$~25
GURBACHAN SINGH BHATIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sonal Anand, Advocate
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. A.K. Iyer & Ms. M. Chatterjee, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
% 08.09.2017
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which merely records the factual assertions of the parties. The appellant’s contention that the observations are likely to cause prejudice to the complainant, appears to be prima facie unfounded. All the rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
The appeal and the pending applications are disposed of.
Dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017
r
Page | 1
Gurbachan Singh Bhatia
State NCT of Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
