Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Sri Virendra Yadav vs Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd ... on 28 January, 2019

Author: Suman Shyam

Bench: Suman Shyam

                                                                   Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010025772016




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                   Case No. : FAO 38/2016

            1:SRI VIRENDRA YADAV
            S/O SRI RAMAYAN YADAV, R/O KAUSHALPURI, KHARGAPUR, P.S. GOMATI
            NAGAR, TEH LUCKNOW, DIST. LUCKNOW-226010, UTTAR PRADESH.

            VERSUS

            1:RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD and 4 ORS
            HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CORE 4, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7 LODHI ROAD, NEW
            DELHI 110003

            2:MR RAJEEV SHARMA
             MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION
            LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CORE 4
             SCOPE COMPLEX
             7 LODHI ROAD
             NEW DELHI-110003

            3:MR. JEETENDER KUMAR
            ASSTT. MANAGER BONDS OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION
            LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CORE 4
             SCOPE COMPLEX
             7 LODHI ROAD
             NEW DELHI 110003

            4:MR. SATAN YADAV
             S/O LATE PARAS NATH YADAV
             C/O MEGHALAYA CHAVCOL
             JYOTI KUCHI
             OPPOSITE MASJID GUWAHATI 781034
             DIST. KAMRUP M
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.R C SANCHATI
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/2

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.J ISLAM R-5




                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

                                          ORDER

28.01.2019 Mr. S. Sancheti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that this appeal has become infructuous. The said prayer has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

In view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of as infructuous.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant