Dismissed¶19

Gagandeep Singh v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Delhi HC25 Apr 2026FAO/353/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court order dated 25.04.2026 (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) dismissing FAO 353/2013 (Gagandeep Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.) for default and non-prosecution after the appellant's prolonged absence since 03.04.2018; repeated notices and default notices (22.01.2021, 01.12.2022, 05.09.2023, 29.01.2024); respondent no. 4's early-hearing application CM APPL. 2486/2021; courier service acknowledged; no ratio, statutes or precedents involved.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal (FAO 353/2013) is dismissed for default and non-prosecution in view of the appellant's continued non-appearance despite repeated notices, default notices and acknowledged courier service. ¶19

Gagandeep Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 353/2013 & CM APPL. 2486/2021

¶4

GAGANDEEP SINGH .....Appellant

¶5

Through: None

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Aakriti Kapila and Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Advocates Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 4

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 25.04.2026

¶11

Since 03.03.2026 was declared a holiday vide notification dated 27.02.2026, the matters listed for 03.03.2026 were directed to be taken up on 25.04.2026.

¶12

There is no appearance on behalf of the appellant.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellant last appeared on 03.04.2018, and this position was duly noted on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 filed an application, being CM APPL. 2486/2021, seeking early hearing of the appeal. Notice was issued to the appellant as well as the other parties vide order dated 22.01.2021. Subsequently, on 01.12.2022, fresh notice was directed to be issued in view of the continued non-appearance.

¶14

On 05.04.2023, counsel for the appellant appeared and submitted that he had no instructions from the appellant. Thereafter, default notice was

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 30/04/2026 at 13:00:05

¶17

issued to the appellant on 05.09.2023, and again, fresh default notice was directed to be issued on 29.01.2024.

¶18

On 19.08.2025, it was recorded that the appellant remained unrepresented. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. As per the office report, while service through speed post could not be effected, service through courier is shown to have been duly acknowledged.

¶19

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed for default and non-prosecution.

¶20

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶21

APRIL 25, 2026 sn

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 30/04/2026 at 13:00:05

Gagandeep Singh v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagandeep Singh v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sheela

Ravi Ranjan Vs M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr.

Raj Dulari Pabbi Vs the State (Govt of NCT ) of Delhi & Anr.

Smt Rekha & Ors. Vs Union of India

Natesh Malhotra Vs Ramesh Kumar Sethi

Deputy Conservator of Forests, Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Mam Chand