Brief order accepting an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. No substantive law applied.
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.
HPSEBL vs. Tilak Raj
CMP(M) No. 320/2023
7.7.2023 Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants/applicants.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents /non-applicants No. 1 to 4.
CMP (M) No. 320/2023
Heard. For the reasons stated in the application,
which is duly supported by an affidavit of Under Secretary (GE), HPSEBL, we find sufficient cause for condonation of delay that has crept up in filing of the appeal. Ordered accordingly. The application stands disposed of.
LPA No. /2023
Be registered. List for consideration on 24.7.2023.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
7.7.2023 (pankaj)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HPSEBL
Tilak Raj
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
