Back
ARINDAM LODH
Manindra Tripura – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner has expired, requiring adjournment. (Para 1) |
| 2. adjournment granted, matter to be listed later. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
Arindam Lodh, J. - Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought for an adjournment for taking necessary steps since the petitioner has expired.
2. Prayer stands allowed.
3. List the matter on 03.04.2023.
The court recognized the necessity of adjournment due to the petitioner's death, emphasizing procedural integrity in ongoing legal matters.
Repeated adjournments aimed at delaying proceedings are unacceptable, emphasizing the need for timely resolutions in execution of decree.
The court may grant adjournments to ensure all parties are adequately represented and have the opportunity to file necessary legal documents.
Courts may grant adjournments in exceptional circumstances, such as medical reasons, but may also set limits on future adjournments.
A writ petition becomes moot upon the death of the petitioner, necessitating its closure.
The court allowed the closure of the matter due to the petitioner's demise.
The court balanced the equities by considering the diligent prosecution of the case and the need for travel, setting aside the order subject to the payment of costs and the respondent making herself ....
Contempt petition closed upon issuance of appointment orders and apology for delay.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
