This is an oral order dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal due to want of prosecution as the appointed counsel stated there were no instructions and the appellant showed no interest in continuing.
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
C/LPA/1200/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1200 of 2019 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5137 of 2019
NARESHKUMAR GIRDHARLAL LOTIYA
Versus DENA BANK
Appearance: NIYANT R BHIMANI(8000) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH
and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI Date : 11/11/2019 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH)
This matter has been taken-up in the revised call.
Shri Niyant R. Bhimani, learned counsel, whose name is shown in the cause list for the appellant, states that he has no instructions in the matter.
No other learned counsel has put any appearance note. Earlier, Shri C.S.Popat, learned counsel was appearing for the appellant, and he was replaced by Shri Niyant R. Bhimani, learned counsel.
Today, there is no one to replace Shri Niyant R. Bhimani, learned counsel.
It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(A.J. SHASTRI, J)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
Page 1 of 1
NARESHKUMAR GIRDHARLAL LOTIYA
DENA BANK
Vikram Nath
A.J. Shastri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
