SURINDER KUMAR(Not Applicable) vs NIPUN JINDAL AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) — COPC/463/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010182152026

Filing Number

COPC/15702/2026

Filing Date

03-Apr-2026

Registration No

COPC/463/2026

Registration Date

02-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 215

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURINDER KUMAR(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Ashok Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NIPUN JINDAL AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)

    Adv. ,Vinod Kumar Gupta 1123

  2. 2.Nipun Jindal(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Maneet Verma(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh VermaView PDF

    Case Summary: COPC/463/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Surinder Kumar's petition seeking compliance with a prior judgment (CWP No.13094 of 2025) after the respondents' counsel produced evidence that all judgment benefits—including DCRG, leave encashment, and interest—had been paid to the petitioner as of February 23, 2026. Finding nothing further to adjudicate, the court closed the petition while permitting the petitioner to revive it if grievances remained unaddressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

  4. 03-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. COPC/463/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: COPC/463/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Surinder Kumar's petition seeking compliance with a prior judgment (CWP No.13094 of 2025) after the respondents' counsel produced evidence that all judgment benefits—including DCRG, leave encashment, and interest—had been paid to the petitioner as of February 23, 2026. Finding nothing further to adjudicate, the court closed the petition while permitting the petitioner to revive it if grievances remained unaddressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case