Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 5652 (PNJ)

NATHI SINGH v. INDIAN RAILWAY AND ORS

FAO/1155/2022 · 2026-07-06

Lapita Banerji

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Nathi Singh Indian Railway CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : None the appellant Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1. LAPITA BANERJI This is an appeal of the year The appellant is not represented. Vide order dated April 10, 2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench pass overs, none had put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. On April 26, 2023, May 17, 2024 and November 0 not represented. Today neither is there any representation on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been made. In the circumstances stated hereinabove, the present appeal being FAO-1155 July 06, 2026 Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable Sr. No. 229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision Versus Indian Railway and others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI None the appellant. Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) This is an appeal of the year 2022 The appellant is not represented. Vide order dated April 10, 2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench, it was observed that in none had put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. On April 26, 2023, May 17, 2024 and November 06, 2024, the appellant was also not represented. Today neither is there any representation on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been made. In the circumstances stated hereinabove, the present appeal 1155-2022 is dismissed in default. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 6 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1155-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 …Appellant …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI 2. The appellant is not represented. Vide order dated April 10, it was observed that in spite of two none had put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. On April 6, 2024, the appellant was also not represented. Today neither is there any representation on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been made. In the circumstances stated hereinabove, the present appeal sed in default. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.07.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document