An interlocutory application in a criminal petition was rendered infructuous and was disposed of as such by the court, with no substantive decision recorded.
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.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC030004282024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/33/2024 in Crl.Pet./16/2024
Dr. Madhurjya Sarmah House No. ZC-11 Near Rajiv Gandhi Stadium Salem Veng Mualpui Aizawl
VERSUS
State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl 2:Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Gateway Building Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400 001 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP Mizoram
Page No.# 2/2
ORDER
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
16.07.2024
Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
I.A has become infructuous.
In view of above, I.A stands disposed of as infructuous.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Dr. Madhurjya Sarmah
State of Mizoram
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
Nelson Sailo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
