Chhattisgarh High Court
WP227/788/2022 of SHIV KUMAR YADAV Vs INDUSLAND BANK LTD. on 7 October 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 788 of 2022 1 - Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Tijram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 38, 14 No. Block, Domanhill, Chirmiri, Sonawani, Colly, Chirimiri Pin 497557 District - Mcb (C.G.) Koriya Now ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indusland
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CGHC010408042022
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 788 of 2022 1 - Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Tijram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 38, 14 No. Block, Domanhill, Chirmiri, Sonawani, Colly, Chirimiri Pin 497557 District - Mcb (C.G.) Koriya Now
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indusland Bank Ltd. Rep. By Its Authorized Representative Mr. M. Raghuraman, Deputy Manager (Legal) And Having Its Registered Office At New No. 34 Old Nos 115 And 116 G. N. Chetty Road T. Nagar Chennai- 600017 2 - Sole Arbitrator Shri K. Kumaran, Advocate Flat No. 2-6d, 6th Floor, 2nd Block, Indus Amber 73, West Jones Road, West Saidapet, Chennai – 600015 3 - Anita Ravi Ward No. 40, Harikishan Dafai, Sonawni Colly, Domanhill, Chirimiri, District - Koriya (Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur ) Pin 497557
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None present. For Respondent(s) : None present
(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 08/10/2026 It transpires form the order sheets that the present petition is pending since 2022 and till 25.07.2025, despite repeated opportunities, the defects in the petition could not be removed by the counsel for the petitiner. On 23.09.2026, when the matter was taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today, when the matter was again taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge