The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition because the petitioner failed to comply with the court's direction to deposit 50% of a certain amount by the specified deadlines.
no relief
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.
$~16
M/S SADHU RAM SURESH CHAND JEWELLERS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Y. R. Sharma, Adv.
versus
CORPORATION BANK ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
The orders passed for deposit of 50% of the amount by cheque on 20th August, 2018 and thereafter on 26th September, 2018 have not been complied with. No deposit, as directed has been made. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions in the matter. The petitioner’s representative is not present and it is reported that he is out of Country.
Taking note of the default committed by the petitioner in depositing the amount, as directed by this Court, the writ petition is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
DECEMBER 11, 2018/ ak
M/S SADHU RAM SURESH CHAND JEWELLERS
CORPORATION BANK
V. KAMESWAR RAO
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
