Ayodhya Prasad vs The District Magistrate-cum-Collector — 9/2025
Case under Arbitration Act Section 37(2). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 13th April 2026.
MISC. CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: BRJE010056872025
Filing Number
414/2025
Filing Date
22-Jul-2025
Registration No
9/2025
Registration Date
22-Jul-2025
Court
Jehanabad DJ Div
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
13-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Last updated 17-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ayodhya Prasad
Adv. Sanjay Kumar
-
2.Upendra Kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.The District Magistrate-cum-Collector
-
2.The Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator
-
3.The Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer
-
4.The Circle Officer
-
5.The National Highway Authority of India
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
The Principal District Judge, Jehanabad dismissed the appeal of Ayodhya Prasad & Anr. for default, finding that the appellants abandoned the case since 10.09.2025 and failed to appear despite repeated court calls, showing no interest in pursuing the appeal. The court noted that despite sufficient opportunities, the appellants neither removed defects nor filed proper pairvi in the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Admission
District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Jan-2026
Admission
District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Dec-2025
Admission
District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Nov-2025
Admission
District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Nov-2025
Admission
District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Sep-2025
Admission
District and Sessions Judge
-
26-Aug-2025
Admission
District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 9/2025
The Principal District Judge, Jehanabad dismissed the appeal of Ayodhya Prasad & Anr. for default, finding that the appellants abandoned the case since 10.09.2025 and failed to appear despite repeated court calls, showing no interest in pursuing the appeal. The court noted that despite sufficient opportunities, the appellants neither removed defects nor filed proper pairvi in the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts