K.K.Saraf v. Neelam Manohar Chandnani
Judgment
Sou. Mamata Sadh i/b. V. Deshpande & Co. for the Applicant. Shri. Vipul Shukla for the Respondent. : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &&& CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. JJ. S.J.VAZIFDAR, S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATEDATEDATE : 10TH MARCH, 2006. : 10TH MARCH, 2006. : 10TH MARCH, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant learned Counsel Respondent. By Notice Motion, Applicant seeking condonation 45 delay. Perused Notice of Motion affidavit-in-support thereof. For reasons stated affidavit-in-support Notice Motion, sufficient condoning delay. There inaction, negligence bonafide Applicant. Hence, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause(a). (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.)
(S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.)
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.