Dismissed
Bhaiyalal Panwar v. Bank of India
DRTSA/889/2022
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Dr. M.P. & C.G.C. Presiding Officer dismissed the Special Application for want of prosecution after the Applicant failed to appear despite prior notice.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
CONTD. ORDER.SHEET
¶2
PAGE No
¶3
CASE No.
¶4
| DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHEORDER | REMARK |
|---|---|---|
| sA889/22 t8t0,/24 |
NonefortheApplicant ShriShreyasDubey,AdvfortheRespondent No.l |
|
| Onmatterbeingtaken today againRc'sportdent CounselapprisedthataccountofApplicant hasalreadybeen settled. |
||
| Onperusaloforderdatcd08/01i24itrc'r'eals that on earlieroccasion alsoItespondent-llarrk hasapprisedtheBench aboutthesame howeverlookingtoun-availabilityofarguing counselofApplicant sidematterhadbcen adjournedsothatApplicantsidemayverillcd thefacteven thennooneappearedonbehalf ofApplicantwhichreflectsthatnow ApplicantshasnointeresttoprosecutethisSA thereforethisSAisdismissedfbrwantof prosecution. |
||
| (ltamNi\YAS PresidinsOfficer D.R.T,Jabalpur (M.P&C.G) Recordbeconsignedto the record roonl. Patel) |
¶5
PAGI
¶6
CONTD. ORDE R.SHEET
¶7
CASE No.
¶8
DATE DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER REMARK
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- applicant
Applicant
- respondent
Respondent
Coram
AI extract
Patel
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court