Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/3920/2021 of MOHAMAD ASLAM KHAN Vs BRANCH MANAGER on 20 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3920 of 2021 Mohamad Aslam Khan S/o Late Mohamamd Yusuf Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Pendra Road, P.S. Gorela, District- Gorela-Pendra- Marwahi C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Branch Manager
CGHC010251342021
2026:CGHC:41033
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3920 of 2021
Mohamad Aslam Khan S/o Late Mohamamd Yusuf Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Pendra Road, P.S. Gorela, District- Gorela-Pendra- Marwahi C.G., Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Branch Manager Address- Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Service Limited, Ground Floor, Jaiswal Complex, Gurukul Vidhalay Ke Pass, Semara, Pendra Road, District- Gorela-Pendra-Marvahi C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Authorized Officer Head Office- Sadhan House, 2nd Floor, Behind Mahindra Towers, 570, P B Marg, Worli Mumbai- 400018, Maharashtra 3 - Area Manager Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Service Limited, Office Sector C-Plot 54/a, Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh 4 - Mr. Prashant Dema Kalbande (Sole Arbitrator) Flat No. 1301, Building No. 4 Wing B, 13th Floor, Mhada Complex, Virar Bolinj, Virar West, District- Palghar- 401303, Maharashtra
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
:
None
For Respondent(s) :
Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board
21/09/2026
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.
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner, nor is there any representation on his behalf, despite the matter having been called twice in the second round.
2. In view of the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the present petition for want of prosecution.
3. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. SD/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE Madhurima