The High Court observed that no representation appeared on behalf of the petitioner in two filed writ petitions. Relying on the respondent's submission that dues were recovered, the court held the petitions were infructuous.
Writ petitions dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION Nos.14192 AND 14251 OF 2015
ORAL ORDER :
Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions.
the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the respondents have already recovered an amount of Rs.3,29,511/- and Rs.27,852/- by way of Demand Drafts, and the details of the same are furnished in the form of mail. The said details/mails are placed on record. In view of the same, nothing remains to be adjudicated in these writ petitions and the said writ petitions have become infructuous.
infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
writ petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J
23rd January, 2023 Mgr
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14192 of 2015
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14251 of 2015
Respondents in Writ Petition Nos. 14192 and 14251 of 2015
K. LAKSHMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
