Sarnam Singh vs. Konch Sahakari Kray Vikray Samiti
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
28 Jan 2014
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
| b | ITEM NO.53 | COURT NO.13 | SECTION XI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S U P R E M E C O U R T O F | RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS | I N D I A | ||||
| Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) | No(s). | 5718-5719/2014 | ||||
| (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/03/2012<br>in CMWP No. 14646/1999 AND DATED 27/08/2012 in CMRA No. 119834/2012<br>passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad) | ||||||
| SARNAM SINGH | Petitioner(s) | |||||
| VERSUS | ||||||
| KONCH SAHAKARI KRAY VIKRAY SAMITI | Respondent(s) | |||||
| (with office report) | ||||||
| Date : 16/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. | ||||||
| CORAM : | ||||||
| HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN | ||||||
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. Aditi Mohan, Adv.<br>Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv. | Ms. Deepika Shori, Adv. | ||||
| For Respondent(s) | Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr. | R.K. Gupta, Adv.<br>S.K. Gupta, Adv.<br>M.K. Gupta, Adv.<br>B.P. Gupta, Adv.<br>Shekhar Kumar,Adv. | ||||
| UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following | O R D E R | |||||
| Leave granted.<br>The appeals are allowed in terms of the Signed<br>Order. | ||||||
| Signature Not Verified | ||||||
| Digitally signed by | ||||||
| Usha Rani Bhardwaj<br>Date: 2015.02.20 | (NEELAM GULATI) | (SAROJ SAINI ) | ||||
| 16:31:40 IST<br>Reason: | COURT MASTER<br>COURT MASTER<br>(Signed order is placed on the file) | |||||
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<br>CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION | ||||||
| CIVIL APPEAL NOS.<br>OF 2014<br>(Arising out of SLP(C ) Nos. 5718-5719 of 2014) | ||||||
| SARNAM SINGH | Petitioner(s) | |||||
| VERSUS | ||||||
KONCH SAHAKARI KRAY VIKRAY SAMITI Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the Writ Petition had earlier been dismissed for default in 2007 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. He contends that the Appellant ought to have been more diligent. The fact remains that the Appellant had engaged a counsel who had prayed for the matter to be passed over for a day but this request had not been granted. He further states that the Appellant should be burdened with cost because of negligence. The Impugned Order is set aside subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs by the Appellant. The Appellant shall be present on the next date of hearing fixed by the High Court as per the List and shall not seek any adjournment. The Appeals are allowed in these terms.
.................J (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
.................J (C. NAGAPPAN)
NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 16, 2015