Appeal record perished in a 2011 court fire and could not be reconstructed; parties could not be served or produced records. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1755 of 1992 Date of Decision: 13.05.2024
Kailash Chander Bali
.....Appellant.
Versus
Delhi Financial Corporation and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:None for the parties.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J . (Oral)
The file of the above-captioned appeal is stated to have perished in the fire which broke-out in a portion of the premises of this Court in January, 2011. From the perusal of the documents annexed in the file, it transpires that the copies of the paper-book and the orders passed by this Court in the afore-referred appeal, were not available in the record of the concerned MAC Tribunal. As per the Report submitted by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, through learned District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide the letter dated 05.01.2023, the notice issued to the appellant had been received back with the report that he was not residing at the given address, whereas the notice issued to respondent No.1 had been received back unserved and it had been reported on the notice, as issued to respondent No.2 that no such Company was found to be existing at the
YAG DUTT 2024.05.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO No.1755 of 1992 -2-
given address and the notices issued to respondents No.3 and 5 had been received back with their reports to the effect that they were not in possession of any relevant document/Record and the notice issued to respondent No.4 was received back with the report that he was not residing at the given address.
May 13, 2024 Yag Dutt
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No
YAG DUTT 2024.05.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
Kailash Chander Bali
Delhi Financial Corporation
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4
Respondent No.5
Meenakshi I. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
