RAMESH CHANDRA KAKHANI v. UNION BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI AND O
CW/8119/2002 · 2025-08-22
Anand Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11144 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11144 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:33416] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8119/2002 Ramesh Chandra Kakhani Son of Shri Rooplal Kakhani, aged about 48 years, Resident of 102/5, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020. ----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Bank of India through Chairman and Managing Director 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
2. The General Manager (Personnel), Union Bank of Inida 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
3. The Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Santokba Durlabji Hospital Premises, Bhawani Singh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2344/2002 Ramesh Chandra Kakhani Son of Shri Rooplal Kakhani, aged about 48 years, Resident of 102/5, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020. ----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Bank of India through Chairman and Managing Director 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
2. The General Manager (Personnel), Union Bank of Inida 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
3. The Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Santokba Durlabji Hospital Premises, Bhawani Singh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present
[2025:RJ-JP:33416] (2 of 2) [CW-8119/2002] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/08/2025
1. On 30.07.2025, nobody appeared on behalf of the parties and this Court passed the following order:-
"None appears for the parties. List the matter on 13.08.2025."
2. Even today, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners to argue the matter. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the writ petitions.
3. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of connected petition.
(ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /41-42