The appellant sought to withdraw the commercial appeal with liberty to move an application regarding cross-examination in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
$~22
VINIT KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
PANKAJ KUMAR
..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
% 01.02.2024
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
CM Appl.6173/2024
FAO (COMM) 22/2024 & CM Appl.6172/2024 [ Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief ]
FAO (COMM) 22/2024 1/2
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2024 at 12:43:41
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 1, 2024 /pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
FAO (COMM) 22/2024 2/2
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2024 at 12:43:41
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the commercial appeal should be withdrawn by the appellant?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh DeoReferred¶16
(1988) 4 SCC 619 · Who else cites this
VINIT KUMAR
PANKAJ KUMAR
RAJIV SHAKDHER
AMIT BANSAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
