The court disposed of two execution petitions as having been rendered infructuous following full compliance with the judgment in question. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Execution petitions and pending applications disposed of as rendered infructuous.
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
Execution Petition No. 115/2017 a/w Execution Petition No. 119/2017 Decided on: 25.04.2024
(1) Execution Petition No. 115/2017
Kamlesh Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents (2) Execution Petition No. 119/2017 Promila Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. None for respondent No. 2.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Mr. Rajinder Thakur, CGC, for respondent No. 3, in both the petitions.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) fairly
submits that the judgment in question in both the cases stands fully complied with, thereby rendering these execution petitions infructuous.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge
( Sushil Kukreja )
24th April, 2024 Judge (raman)
Kamlesh Kumari
State of H.P.
Promila Devi
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
