Four writ petitions were dismissed for default due to the absence of petitioner representation on the day of hearing, despite counsel details appearing in the cause list.
Petitions dismissed for default; no costs awarded.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
W.P.Nos.8729,8731,8737 and 8747 of 2012
Rainbow Advertising V
GHMC , Hyd and another.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
W.P.Nos.8729,8731,8737 and 8747 of 2012
Order : ( Per Sri GR, J )
Even though these writ petitions are listed under the caption of “for dismissal” when the matters are called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, though name of counsel for the petitioner is reflected in the cause list. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed for default. No costs.
_______
GODA RAGHURAM, J
________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
Date :20-11-12 kk
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
W.P.Nos.8729,8731,8737 and 8747 of 2012
Dated 20-11-2012
Rainbow Advertising
GHMC , Hyd
another
GODA RAGHURAM
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
