Single Judge order dismissing a Writ Petition as infructuous without detailed reasoning or substantive discussion of the matter.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3528 of 2021 Date of Decision: October 14, 2022
Neena Bansal
...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda
...Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Madaan
Present:Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for the respondent. ****
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Writ Petition
has become infructuous and the same be disposed of.
Dismissed as infructuous.
No costs.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Judge
(H.S. Madaan) Judge October 14, 2022 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No
PARVINDER SINGH 2022.10.18 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Neena Bansal
Bank of Baroda
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
H.S. Madaan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
