Appeal against a restoration order was dismissed as infructuous because the Letters Patent Appeal was found not to have been dismissed for non-compliance.
Application dismissed as 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.
Patna High Court MJC No.2149 of 2012 (2) dt.01-12-2015
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2149 of 2012 ====================================================== |
|---|
| Vijay Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) |
| 2 01-12-2015 Mr. Parijat Saurabh, Advocate, who has appeared in the |
| Letters Patent Appeal, admits that the restoration application has |
| become infructuous because it appears to have been filed on |
| account of misconception since the L.P.A. itself has not been |
| dismissed for non-compliance of any order. |
| The application is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. |
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
V.P.Sinha/-
(Sudhir Singh, J)
U
Vijay Kumar
The State of Bihar
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
SUDHIR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
