Petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the petition. The High Court allowed such payment with reserved liberty to approach the trial Court.
Permission granted to withdraw petition with liberty to move trial Court application at appropriate stage.
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.MMO No. 16 of 2017.
Date of decision: June 28, 2017.
Chandreshwar Gupta …...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. …..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pramod Thakur, Addl. AG for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Virendaer Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 4 already exparte.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Learned Counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition at this stage with liberty reserved to move appropriate application in the trial Court at an appropriate stage. Leave and liberty as sought is granted. The
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
2
petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to file appropriate application in the trial Court at an appropriate stage in accordance with law, if so, advised. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
June 28, 2017, (vs)
Chandreshwar Gupta
State of H.P.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
