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

NANDLAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


Advocates:
DINESH CHANDRA PANDEY

ITEM NO.75 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE REGISTRAR RAJESH KUMAR GOEL

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 29728/2018

NANDLAL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)

Date : 29-11-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Dinesh Chandra Pandey, AOR

Mr. Rajeev Gurung,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Anoop Kandari,Adv.

Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Service of notice is complete qua sole respondent but no one

has entered appearance on his behalf.

However, Mr. Anoop Kandari, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf

of Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Ld. Advocate-on-Record seeks and

is given two weeks’ time to file the vakalatnama and four weeks’

time to file counter affidavit on behalf of sole respondent. After

expiry of four weeks’ the matter be proces

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