SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Jhk) 2005

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
Aruneshwar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Pawan Kr. Pathak, Advocate., for the Appellant ; Naresh Prasad Thakur, Advocate, for the Opposite Paries No. 2

JUDGMENT

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - I.A. No. 4843 of 2017

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for exempting him to surrender in terms of rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.

2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and full and final settlement has been made by handing over a draft of Rs. 85,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 which fact has been conceded by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the same being an exceptional circumstance the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.

4. I.A. No. 4843 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.

I.A. No. 4844 of 2017

5. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 702 days in filing the revision application.

6. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application and the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, this application is allowed and the delay of 702 days in filing the revision applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top