IN THS HIGH COUET OF FifDHY& PRADESH AT JfflALPUa v. Unlon or Inclla
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Aug 2005
Outcome
Dismissed
Therjefore, the petition is dismissed for non-
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Shri Parag Kotecha, P4nel Lawyer for the State/r^spondent No.2. Shri Vinod Eteahmukh, c4 ^unsel for respondents No.3 and 4. On the iast <fate of heat ^ing i.e. 30-6-2005, Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel for tiie petitioner app^ared and sought time. But todcy, when the mAtter is called out, nobody is present on behaif of the petitioner. Therjefore, the petition is dismissed for non- Interim order passed ei^riier stands vacated. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge •tfl! . 'i^J^ i.ilBI'iiP llplt"i":"* Barys
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therjefore, the petition is dismissed for non-
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 23 Aug 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.