KALYAN RAI SURANA
Deepak Kumar Sanyal – Appellant
Versus
Naba Kanta Bardoloi – Respondent
1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned advocate for the appellants. He is an out-station advocate, who had come from Kolkata to make his submissions. His submissions were concluded on 26.04.2018, reserving his right to reply. On 05.06.2018, none appeared for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Hence, by scrolling the name of the said learned advocate in the display notice board, this Court had waited till 12.00 noon. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the appellant had concluded his submissions and also submitted a written note of his argument. Thereafter, Ms. S. Roy, learned proxy Counsel appeared on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and prayed for adjournment, which was not conceded to and refused and the argument was closed. However, for ends of justice, by order dated 05.06.2018, it was provided that if the advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 had anything to submit, it may be done in form of written argument on or before 12.06.2018, upon furnishing a copy thereof to the local advocate for the appellant, it could be submitted before the Court Master. However, till date no written argument was submitted on behalf of the respondents
B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Dr. Dwijendra Mohan Lahiri vs. Rajendra Nath
K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda
K. Venkataramaiah vs. S. Seetharama Reddy and Others
Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt vs. Yashram Vasta (dead) by LRs. AIR 1993 SC 1587
Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya vs. Shivratan Lal Koshal
Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Others
State of Maharashtra vs. National Construction Company, Bombay
Tarapada Mandal and Another vs. Hajia Khatum Bibi and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.