The High Court of J&K and Ladakh dismissed the special leave petition for want of prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear on the dates of hearing, indicating a loss of interest in prosecuting the matter before the Court.
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.
S. No. 33 After Notice Matters
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SWP No. 310/2016
Muhammad Muzamil Mir
Through:
None
…..Petitioner(s)
V/s
Managing Director And Ors. ….. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb, Dy. AG
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge.
ORDER
01.12.2021
There was no representation on behalf of petitioner on last date of hearing. Today also, when the matter was called out nobody turned up to represent the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge
SRINAGAR
01.12.2021
“Mir Arif”
AASIF GUL 2021.12.01 23:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Muhammad Muzamil Mir
Managing Director And Ors.
Sanjay Dhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
