Dismissed
M/S.O.M.C v. State
Orissa HCOJC/4427/1996
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The petitioner was absent. Hearing the Additional Standing Counsel for the State, the court opined that the petitioner's prayer does not deserve to be granted in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
OJC No. 4427 of 1996
11. 17.08.2016 No one is present on behalf of the petitioner even on revised
¶2
call.
¶3
Having heard learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-oppos
ite parties and on perusal of record, we are of the opinion that in the facts of the case, pra
yer made in this case does not deserve to be granted in writ jurisdiction.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
¶4
( VINEET SARAN )
¶5
( DR. B.R. SARANGI )
JUDGE
dm
¶6
-2-
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be granted in writ jurisdiction.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
petitioner
- respondent
State
Coram
AI extract
VINEET SARAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court