Allowed

Vikram Singh Shekhawat v. M/S Desert Haritate Resourts Pvt. Ltd. and

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2018CRES/79/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dispensed with service of non-petitioner respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the risk of the applicant and allowed the restoration of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 916/2014, conditioned upon deposit of court costs.

What did the court decide?

Service of non-petitioner respondents dispensed with; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 916/2014 restored on original number upon deposit of Rs. 2,000 cost.

Vikram Singh Shekhawat Vs M/S Desert… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 79/2018

¶3

Vikram Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Madan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Thai, Pana Divrala Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Desert Heritage Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Through Director, Shri Manroop Singh S/o Shri Bhana Ram, R/o A-41, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur Owner

¶7

Ashok Kulhari S/o Shri Kishore Singh, B/c Jat, R/o 138, Kanak Vihar, Ajmer Road, Thana Bagru, Distt. Jaipur. Driver

¶8

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur Insurance Company

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Buddhi Prakash on behalf of
	Ms. Chitra Goel

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

05/10/2018

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service of

¶15

non-petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 may be dispensed with.

¶16

In view of above, service of non-petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 is dispensed with on the risk of applicant.

¶17

Heard on application seeking restoration of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 916/2014.

¶18

Considering the facts mentioned in the application and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the application is allowed and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 916/2014 is

¶19

(2 of 2) [CRES-79/2018]

¶20

restored on its original number; provided applicant deposits Rs. 2,000/- as cost before State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today, failing which this application shall be deemed as dismissed.

¶21

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶22

S. Kumawat/59

Vikram Singh Shekhawat v. M/S Desert Haritate Resourts Pvt. Ltd. and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh Shekhawat v. M/S Desert Haritate Resourts Pvt. Ltd. and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital and Anr. Vs Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.

Shri Nawal Kishore S/O Bihari Lal Vs Anil Kumar S/O Late Shri Padmavati Prasad Jain

Jai Devi Pandey Vs Ram Gopal Saini and Others

Harikishan Meena Vs Bansi and Ors.

Smt Chhoti Devi W/O Late Chhotu Singh Rawat Vs Sanwar Lal S/O Ramaji Jat

Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp