Hasim Mansuri vs.satish Kumar Adya

Hasim Mansuri vs Satish Kumar Adya

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 08, 2017

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1204705

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1204705
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Mar 08, 2017
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hasim Mansuri

Respondent

Satish Kumar Adya

Advocate Ms. Geeta

Excerpt

$~1 * + in the high court of delhi at new delhi rfa9172016 & c.m. no.43843/2016 (stay) hasim mansuri ..... appellant through: none. versus ..... respondent through: ms. geeta, advocate. satish kumar adya coram: hon'ble ms. justice hima kohli % order0803.2017 1. on the first call, none was present on behalf of the appellant/defendant. in the interest of justice, the matter was passed over. the position remains the same even on the second call.2. a perusal of the order sheets shows that on 25.11.2016, an interim order was granted in favour of the appellant/defendant subject to his depositing the entire decretal amount with upto date interest within six weeks. as per the registry, the appellant/defendant has failed to deposit any amount. further, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant/defendant before the learned registrar (appellate) on 23.1.2017 and 03.3.2017.3. it appears that the appellant/defendant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non- prosecution along with pending application. hima kohli, j march08 2017/ap

Full Judgment

$~1 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA9172016 & C.M. No.43843/2016 (stay) HASIM MANSURI ..... Appellant Through: None. versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Geeta, Advocate. SATISH KUMAR ADYA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER

0803.2017 1. On the first call, none was present on behalf of the appellant/defendant. In the interest of justice, the matter was passed over. The position remains the same even on the second call.

2. A perusal of the order sheets shows that on 25.11.2016, an interim order was granted in favour of the appellant/defendant subject to his depositing the entire decretal amount with upto date interest within six weeks. As per the Registry, the appellant/defendant has failed to deposit any amount. Further, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant/defendant before the learned Registrar (Appellate) on 23.1.2017 and 03.3.2017.

3. It appears that the appellant/defendant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non- prosecution along with pending application. HIMA KOHLI, J MARCH08 2017/ap

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2017 Same Parties Hasim Mansuri vs Satish Kumar Adya Same Subject Land Acquisition