REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Virmatiben Appellant

V/S

Amjad Fajal Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DEEP NARAIN SINGH VS. NAGESHWAR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
WAMAN SHRINIWAS KINI VS. RATILAL BHAGWANDAS AND CO [REFERRED TO]
CHANDNEE WIDYA VATI MADDEN VS. C L KATIAL [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. RADHA BAI [REFERRED TO]
NATHULAL VS. PHOOLCHAND [REFERRED TO]
MANNALAL KHETAN VS. KEDAR NATH KHETAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BABU LAL [REFERRED TO]
MAYAWANTI VS. KAUSHALYA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED VS. SUBHASH HIMATLAL DESAI:ARVIND B SHETH [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR DAYANDEO KESEKAR VS. VISHWANATH PANDU BARDE [REFERRED TO]
AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. TEJ BAHADUR PRAJAPATI [REFERRED TO]
LINECAI GAMANGO VS. DAYANIDHI JENA [REFERRED TO]
NEMINATH APPAYYA HANAMANNANAVAR VS. JAMBOORAO SATAPPA KOCHERI [REFERRED TO]
PARSHURAM KATHOD GAIKAR VS. PANDU MAHADU HARD [REFERRED TO]
LOTAN RAMCHANDRA SHIMPI VS. SHANKAR GANPAT KAYASTH [REFERRED TO]
TULSABAI VS. RAJANI [REFERRED TO]
RAM KARAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD VS. NEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD [REFERRED TO]
BASAVANTAPPA VS. IRAPPA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, although served with the notice issued by this Court, have chosen not to appear before this Court either in person or through an advocate and oppose the present applications.

(2.) Since the challenge in both the applications are to the selfsame common judgment and order arising out of the same proceedings, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, the Criminal Revision Application No.50 of 2021 is treated as the lead matter.

Click here to view full judgment.

VIRMATIBEN Vs. AMJAD FAJAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address