Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition due to subsequent developments. Court granted permission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Permission to withdraw the petition granted.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CR No. 18 of 2017. Decided on: 19.5.2017
State Bank of India .......Petitioner. Versus Sandeep Kapila & anr. ….…Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).
Learned counsel representing the
petitioner submits that on account of subsequent developments having taken place after the filing of this petition, the same has turned infructuous. He seeks permission to withdraw the same. Permission granted. The petition, as such, is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) May 19, 2017 (karan) Judge.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
State Bank of India
Sandeep Kapila
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
