Petitioner challenged a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.; counsel, unable to cite the provision of law under which the challenge was made, sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the High Court dismissed as withdrawn.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
LAXMAN SURENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Mutreja, Advocate through VC with Son of Petitioner in person.
versus
M/S TEXMACO LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 12.11.2025
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
NOVEMBER 12, 2025/ R
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 14/11/2025 at 11:42:05
Laxman Surender Singh
M/S Texmaco Ltd.
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
