Cran No. 1 of 2021 · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
2005 stands dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Adv., Mr. Javed Majid, Adv., Mr. Himadri Ghosh, Adv. …for the Petitioners. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Learned Advocate for the petitioner/opposite party that an application for review against the order passed by this Court is not maintainable. Therefore, he submits that he be permitted to withdraw the instant application for review on instruction. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner may also be permitted to file affidavit-in-opposition or written objection in view of the ratio laid down in Rajnesh –Vs.- Neha & Anr. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 324. The petitioner is permitted to take proper step to protect his interest in accordance with law in the Trial Court. If any such step is taken by the petitioner herein in the Trial Court, the Learned Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law. The application being CRAN/1/2021 under Section 28(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 stands dismissed as withdrawn. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2005 stands dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 28(2).
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.