The case was disposed of as withdrawn because the respondent bank complied with previous directions and the applicant did not wish to proceed with the writ. No substantive issue was adjudicated.
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.
CONTD. ORDER.SHEET
PAGE No
CASE No
| DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHE ORDER | REMARK |
|---|---|---|
| M3124 05t071234 |
CounselforAppticantShriUmangGoyel, Advocate Respondent-Bank byShriUditMaindiretta,Advocate |
|
| CounselforAppticantsubmittedthatRespondent' Bankhas comptiedwithatt thedirectionsofthis TribunatpassedinSA2O7123andhe doesnotwishto proceedwiththepresentlr1A.Thecounsel for appticantfurtherpraysforwithdrawalofthepresent MA. |
||
| CounselforRespondent-Bankhasgotnoobjection' | ||
| lnviewofthefact thattheRespondent-Bankhas alreadycomptiedwiththedirectionsofthisTribunal andtheAppticantdoesnotwishtoproceedwiththe presentMA, thepresentlvlAstandsdisposedofas withdrawn.Recordbeconsig nedtorecordroom. (Ra s atet) Presidingofficer |
Applicant
Bank
Ra
satet
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
